Subject: Re: Time to update KNF?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 01/18/2000 19:38:42
> This I've been thinking of mentioning - how many people are stuck
> with 80 columns these days?
As a datapoint, at home, I have four displays, two of which are "stuck
with" 80 columns. (One is a 1600x1280 NetBSD/sparc bwtwo; one is an
1152x900 NetBSD/sparc cgsix; one is an *old* vga board with an *old*
monochrome monitor and I don't even know whether it *can* do anything
but text mode - I certainly haven't tried; one is an IBM 3151, an ascii
terminal - hmm, I wonder if it does 132 columns....)
But even when I'm on the X displays, I normally use 80-column windows,
and would resent being told I were broken to do so.
> [...] KNF but with 132 columns. A fairly arbitary number, but it
> fits comfortably on screen when I have to use a 1024x864 display
Ouch. In 1024 pixels I can't see fitting more than about 170 columns,
which means at most one 132-column window. That's just not enough, in
There's also the problem that unless you mutate the coding style
significantly, many/most of those lines can't use anywhere near 80
columns, never mind 132, so you end up wasting a lot of that space
(both on screen and on paper).
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B