From: Blair Z. <bl...@or...> - 2003-10-05 22:03:08
|
Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > > On Sun, 05 Oct 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > > I agree that short lines are better but I dislike to break some code > into > > > several expressions (or shorten identifier name or other tricks) only to > > > stick to that outdated 80 chars limit. > > > > It's outdated in the sense that our displays and printers can handle > > better than this. The question is whether humans can. Enforcing this > > (or another) limit keeps people from writing unreadable spaghetti code. > > Unless you use extremely long identifiers, which should be discouraged > > in any case, 80 chars should be more than enough. > > Not a flame, but just some comments about that : > I just don't like such arbitrary rules made in the name of "protecting the > programmer from writing bad code". I mean, if a programmer is actually that > bad then he will write unreadable code no matter the chars limit :-) > Depending on the programming language, on the ident size and naming > conventions, and many others factors such as the programmer own style of > programming, this limit can vary a lot. Fixing it to 80 chars is nonsense. I agree that nothing can protect the bad programmer from writing bad code. However, I don't feel that 80 characters is outdated. I use the high end laptop work bought me with a 1600x1200 screen (thank you very much :) ) to open 6 ssh windows at 80 characters and have each one open to a different file or task in xemacs or in the shell. So I would like to make a point of keeping at 80 characters. Best, Blair -- Blair Zajac <bl...@or...> Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/ |