>>>>> "CS" == Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CS> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:28:14PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> 80, or 100, or 132 are all some arbitrary limits. But the latter is
already
>> inconvenient on a 12" powermac with reasonable font size [1].
CS> That's an interesting and modern metric: minimum common screen
CS> size divided by minimum readable font size. (For me that comes
CS> out to 150 columns; a 12" display triggers my claustrophobia.)
>> [1] "reasonable" for the old eyes of folks that actually have punched
>> hollerith cards, when they were younger, like e.g. yours sincerly
CS> Right there with you. My school's punch card machines were in the
CS> same room as the TRS-80 Model I ("THE COMPUTER ROOM"). These kids
CS> today with their hula hoops and fax machines and intarwebs...
there is another non-technical consideration for 80 columns and that is
how eyeballs can scan lines. notice that books are printed in a similar
width (though with variable width fonts usually). eyes can scan across a
line and then back the next line best at around this size. too short
lines (like magazine columns) get tiring going back and forth too
often. too long lines make it harder to easily get to the start of the
next line. this has been tested and you can easily play with it
yourself. so 80 columns of fixed size fonts has a long history and not
just from hollerith. 132 column paper was used a bunch too but that was
so that 80 column code could be printed with all sorts of extra shit
like line numbers and stuff. also some reports wanted that but all the
input was 80 columns (good ol' real punch cards). crt's kept that width
for compatibility but they also offered 132 column modes (very hard to
read with narrow chars on vt100 type terms). i keep all my xterms at 80
columns since it does seem to be a good size for my eyes to scan. and i
also keep all my code that way too.
i find it very annoying when i have to read long lines of code. i can
make my windows wider but why ruin them just for that file?
somewhere earlier in this thread a test script with a long string and
two here docs was shown and it was very long. why couldn't the long
string also be a here doc? the only issue would be the trailing newline
but i didn't look carefully at it to see if that mattered. i use here
docs all the time in many places where others don't just to keep under
80 columns. anyhow, that is my $.80 worth here. ignore it at your
pleasure or peril.
back to lurking,
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
