Live data from Hacker News

But no, 80-column terminals in 2020 isn't “reasonable” any more

lkml.org

1–10 of 330 posts

Re: But no, 80-column terminals in 2020 isn't “reasonable” any more

#4
I remember bikeshedding with my coworkers about this topic a few years back while coming up with lint settings. We ended up analyzing all current line widths and realized that something like 98% of lines were under 110 characters, so that is what we ended up using.

Re: But no, 80-column terminals in 2020 isn't “reasonable” any more

#5
I couldn't agree more. Our company standard for Python line length is at 99 characters because that seems like a nice balance between wide enough to show more information, but narrow enough that it tiles well. I think it's much worse for readability to have narrow, tall blocks of code that you have to scroll around in more.

Re: But no, 80-column terminals in 2020 isn't “reasonable” any more

#8

I spend a lot of time writing code on my laptop, and while that could display two 100-column terminals side-by-side, I prefer to also be able to see other windows on my screen while having text at a size that doesn't strain my eyes.

Even on very large high resolution screens, it's nice being able to tile that many more files on the screen. I think 'narrow' source code is advantageous no matter your display.

Re: But no, 80-column terminals in 2020 isn't “reasonable” any more

#9

I remember bikeshedding with my coworkers about this topic a few years back while coming up with lint settings. We ended up analyzing all current line widths and realized that something like 98% of lines were under 110 characters, so that is what we ended up using.

I think a lot of terminals just set that as the default window width. No real reason for it, I usually snap to half the screen width immediately anyways. That turns out to about 105-120 characters width. Some people might just not resize it most of the time. Especially on Mac where efficient window management just isn't a thing.
Post reply on HN