> Probably because IBM decided on 80 columns for their punched cards.
> And that probably didn't have anything to do with a readable width
> for text. Nobody used computers for word processing back then.
> In fact punched cards predate computers altogether, originally
> being developed for elect
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:10 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> “Typesetters hundreds of years ago used less than 80 chars per line, so
>> that’s what we should do for Python code now” is a pretty weak argument.
>
> But that's not the entire argument -- the point it is that typesetters
> had the goal of
As a human, and one who reads and writes code even, I know that MY ability
to understands the meaning of a line of code starts to plummet when it
reaches about 65-70 characters in length.
Yes, of course there are some "it depends" caveats that make some lines
easier and some harder. But an 80 char
