On Thursday, September 5, 2013 10:40:46 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Thanks for the comments, and welcome, but I really don't have a clue what > the relevance of most of them are. Real-world Experience. > > If you are still using equipment that requires 79, then chances are you > > have/will already gone out of business or are keeping/using said > > equipment for nostalgic purposes. > > The point is not that there is *equipment* that requires 79 characters > per line, but that *reading text* is better with a maximum line length > closer to 79 characters than (say) 140 characters. I've just randomly > picked up a magazine (less than 50 characters per line) and two books (60 > and 82 characters per line respectively). The argument I am suggesting is 79 vs 80. > The exact max line length picked is not, in and of itself, critical. PEP > > 8 could have picked 60 characters, or 72, or 77, or 82. 79 characters > (plus newline) happens to be a better choice than (say) 77 or 82 for > historical reasons: some *old* computer equipment was limited to 79 > characters (plus newline), and consequently some *new* computer software > expects the same convention to be held. I propose 80 for Zen: Simplicity. > In a sense, it's a bit like the old urban legend about the width of the > Space Shuttle booster rockets being determined by the width of ancient > Roman chariots. Haha. *Gets a Laugh* > http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp > > While the precise details are wrong, the general claim is more or less > true for boring and unremarkable reasons. Ok. > > As far as math goes. 10 is a nice round number. So multiples of 10 are > > prefer. 80 being my personal choice for editing. > That gives you 80 visible characters plus newline = 81 characters in > total. Quick, what's 81/7? We are focusing on end-users, which might be simple minded. Simple is better than complex. > > Zen says: Simple is better than complex. Use a round number. Integer > > math is easier than float math for the majority of the population. Time > > yourself, not the interpreter with these three questions: In the face of > > ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. If it helps get out the old > > school pen and paper. Question1: 80/8 > > Question2: 79/8 > I don't see the point of this. Why divide by 8? What is this supposed to > demonstrate? Divide by any simple number is 0 simple enouch...? > Also, you're tossing around koans from a Zen that are irrelevant. 79 or > 80, both are equally simple. Where is the ambiguity? The reader might be > forgiven for thinking you're trying to dazzle them and pull the wool over > their eyes by tossing out references to the Zen that sound good but have > no relevance to the question being discussed. No., 79 and 80 are not equally simple. 79 is odd, and 80 is even. > > > Question3: How many chars does you calculator(real or virtual) support? > Seven. Are you suggesting that we should limit our code to a maximum of Ok. Mine displays ten. This question was to get most people off their duff and grab a piece of old-school tech. Might be solar in nature. > seven characters per line? If not, I don't see the point of your question. See above answer. > > Zen says: Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. PEP8 > > isn't a rule. Rules are defined by the equipment/device developers. > PEP 8 certainly is a collection of rules. They are mandatory for new code > added to the standard library, and optional but recommended for third > party libraries. What are the official rules, then... None...? > > Ask yourself... How often do you actually use these 79char devices? > My brain is better at reading lines with maximum line length of 79 > characters than 140 characters. How often do I use my brain? At least > once a day. > [...] Ok. I prefer 80 remember. Simple. base 10. > > Zen says: > > Although practicality beats purity. > > Errors should never pass silently. > > Unless explicitly silenced. > And yet, a bird in the hand saves nine, and the early bird bells the cat. if python.notDefined(): cats != birds != cats > > PEP8 would have been better to define various numbers for realworld > > types of equipment/devices based on average general type of > > equipment/device specs. > No it would not. That would be silly. Well... Why Not? What do you use? > > Closing Zen: > > If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the > > implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. > The implementation is easy to explain: stop typing before you reach 79 > characters, and start a new line of code. I believe Guido once worked for google, why doesn't the software reflect your preferences. Ask google, or him, not me. > > Yep, that's my nuts and bolts on the issue. Walk into you local > > Printshop and ask them about this stuff. Then on your way out the door, > > ask for a business card and see how many chars are on that also. Beware: > > You might actually learn something about advertising while you are there > > also. :) > I don't need to ask them for a business card, since I have a nice > collection of them. Most of them have < 40 characters per line. A few > have < 60 characters on the longest line. None of them come even close to > 79 characters per line. > What's your point? That we should limit ourselves to code that fits on a > business card? My grandfather once told me, "If you can put you resume on a business card, you will succeed in life."
My business card reads "Jack-of-all-trades\nMaster of one: That's my Trade Secret." > -- > > Steven Love these... > > > > > > > provided by google. > production time of post - >'s Simplicity. Thanks Again for comments/opinions. It teaches everyone. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
