Subject: Re: Time to update KNF?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
Date: 01/19/2000 10:48:26
Warner Losh wrote:
> Also, I've seen studies that show that "short and fat" tends to
> produce more understabible code than "tall and thin". But short and
> fat requires better hardware than 80 columns vt100s. When taking into
> account coding styles, one must remember that the code in NetBSD will
> be viewed on everything from an adm3a to a 1600x1200 pixel display
> where one can view 200 columns easily.
This I've been thinking of mentioning - how many people are stuck with
80 columns these days? At work (I'm in a one man group now, so I define
the group's coding style :-), I use KNF but with 132 columns. A fairly
arbitary number, but it fits comfortably on screen when I have to use a
1024x864 display and prints nicely in landscape on A4 paper...