Remix.run Logo
jupp0r 4 days ago

I generally agree, but max line length being so high you have to horizontally scroll while reading code is very detrimental to productivity.

elevation 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Formatters eliminating long lines is a pet peeve of mine.

About once every other project, some portion of the source benefits from source code being arranged in a tabular format. Long lines which are juxtaposed help make dissimilar values stand out. The following table is not unlike code I have written:

  setup_spi(&adc,    mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED,  cs=0x01);
  setup_spi(&eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_control=CS_MUXED,  cs=0x02);
  setup_spi(&mram,   mode=SPI_10, rate=50, cs_control=CS_DIRECT, cs=0x08);

Even if we add 4-5 more operational parameters, I find this arrangement much more readable than the short-line equivalent:

  setup_spi(&adc,
      mode=SPI_01,
      rate=15,
      cs_control=CS_MUXED,
      cs=0x01);
  setup_spi(&eeprom,
      mode=SPI_10,
      rate=13,
      cs_control=CS_MUXED,
      cs=0x02);
  setup_spi(&mram,
      mode=SPI_10,
      rate=50,
      cs_control=CS_DIRECT,
      cs=0x08);

Or worse, the formatter may keep the long lines but normalize the spaces, ruining the tabular alignment:

  setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01);
  setup_spi(&som_eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x02);
  setup_spi(&mram, mode=SPI_10, rate=50, cs_control=CS_DIRECT, cs=0x08);


Sometimes a neat, human-maintained block of 200 character lines brings order to chaos, even if you have to scroll a little.
sn0wleppard 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The worst is when you have lines in a similar pattern across your formatter's line length boundary and you end up with

  setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01);
  setup_spi(&eeprom,
      mode=SPI_10,
      rate=13,
      cs_control=CS_MUXED,
      cs=0x02);
  setup_spi(&mram, mode=SPI_10, rate=50, cs_control=CS_DIRECT, cs=0x08);
crazygringo 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think with the Black formatter you can force the multiline version by adding a trailing comma to the arguments.

The pain point you describe is real, which is why that was intentionally added as a feature.

Of course it requires a language that allows trailing commas, and a formatter that uses that convention.

dvdkon 3 days ago | parent [-]

A similar tip: As far as I can tell, clang-format doesn't reflow across comments, so to force a linebreak you can add a // end-of-line comment.

a_e_k 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, so much this!

I've often wished that formatters had some threshold for similarity between adjacent lines. If some X% of the characters on the line match the character right above, then it might be tabular and it could do something to maintain the tabular layout.

Bonus points for it's able to do something like diff the adjacent lines to detect table-like layouts and figure out if something nudged a field or two out of alignment and then insert spaces to fix the table layout.

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent [-]

I believe some formatters have an option where you can specify a "do not reformat" block (or override formatting settings) via specific comments. As an exception, I'm okay with that. Most code (but I'm thinking business applications, not kernel drivers) benefits from default code formatting rules though.

And sometimes, if the code doesn't look good after automatic formatting, the code itself needs to be fixed. I'm specifically thinking about e.g. long or nested ternary statements; as soon as the auto formatter spreads it over multiple lines, you should probably refactor it.

a_e_k 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm used to things like `// clang-format off` and on pairs to bracket such blocks, and adding empty trailing `//` comments to prevent re-flowing, and I use them when I must.

This was more about lamenting the need for such things. Clang-format can already somewhat tabularize code by aligning equals signs in consecutive cases. I was just wishing it had an option to detect and align other kinds of code to make or keep it more table like. (Destroying table-like structuring being the main places I tend to disagree with its formatting.)

crazygringo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I get what you're saying, and used to think that way, but changed my mind because:

1) Horizontal scrolling sucks

2) Changing values easily requires manually realigning all the other rows, which is not productive developer time

3) When you make a change to one small value, git shows the whole line changing

And I ultimately concluded code files are not the place for aligned tabular data. If the data is small enough it belongs in a code file rather than a CSV you import then great, but bothering with alignment just isn't worth it. Just stick to the short-line equivalent. It's the easiest to edit and maintain, which is ultimately what matters most.

paddy_m 3 days ago | parent [-]

This comes up in testing a lot. I want testing data included in test source files to look tabular. I want it to be indented such that I can spot order of magnitude differences.

VBprogrammer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those kind of tables improve readability right until someone hits a length constraint and had to either touch every line in order to fix the alignment, causing weird conflicts in VCS, or ignore the alignment and it's slow decay into a mess begins.

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not an either/or though. Tables are readable and this looks very much like tabular data. Length constraints should not be fixed if you have code like this, and it won't be "a slow decay into a mess" if escaping the line length rules is limited to data tables like these.

VBprogrammer 4 days ago | parent [-]

By length constraint I meant that one of the fields grows longer than originally planned rather than bypassing the linter.

DemocracyFTW2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

so you're basically saying "look this is neat and I like it, but since we cannot prevent some future chap come along and make a mess of it, let's stop this nonsense, now, and throw our hands up in the air—thoughts and prayers is what I say!"?

VBprogrammer 3 days ago | parent [-]

At best I'd say it's ok to use it sparingly, in places where it really does make an improvement in readability. I've seen people use it just to align the right hand side of a list of assignments, even when there is no tabular nature to what they are assigning.

lambdaba 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree, I'm very much against any line length constraint, it's arbitrary and word wrapping exists.

jaimebuelta 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The first line should be readable enough, but in case it's longer than that, I way prefer the style of

  setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED,  
            cs=0x01);
  setup_spi(&eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_control=CS_MUXED,  
            cs=0x02);
  setup_spi(&mram, mode=SPI_10, rate=50, cs_control=CS_DIRECT, 
            cs=0x08);
of there the short-line alternative presented.

I like short lines in general, as having a bunch of short lines (which tend to be the norm in code) and suddenly a very long line is terrible for readability. But all has exemptions. It's also very dependent on the programming language.

bryanrasmussen 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People have already outlined all the reasons why the long line might be less than optimal, but I will note that really you are using formatting to do styling.

In a post-modern editor (by which I mean any modern editor that takes this kind of thing into consideration which I don't think any do yet) it should be possible for the editor to determine similarity between lines and achieve a tabular layout, perhaps also with styling for dissimilar values in cases where the table has a higher degree of similarity than the one above. Perhaps also with collapsing of tables with some indicator that what is collapsed is not just a sub-tree but a table.

vbezhenar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is an obvious example where automatic formatter fails.

But are there more examples? May be it's not high price to pay. I'm using either second or third approach for my code and I never had much issues. Yes, first example is pretty, but it's not a huge deal for me.

account42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Another issue with fixed line lengths is that it requires tab stops to have a defined width instead of everyone being able to choose their desired indentation level in their editor config.

rerdavies 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think you have that backward. Allowing everyone to choose their desired indentation in their editor config is the issue. That's insane!

DonHopkins 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Another issue with everyone being able to choose their desired indentation level in their editor config is unbounded line length.

growse 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

//nolint

bloak 4 days ago | parent [-]

/* clang-format off */

someothherguyy 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  setup_spi(
    &adc,
    mode=SPI_01,
    rate=15,
    cs_control=CS_MUXED,
    cs=0x01
  );
  setup_spi(
    &eeprom,
    mode=SPI_10,
    rate=13,
    cs_control=CS_MUXED,
    cs=0x02
  );
  setup_spi(
    &mram,
    mode=SPI_10,
    rate=50,
    cs_control=CS_DIRECT,
    cs=0x08
  );
ftfy
DonHopkins 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is good, and objectively better than letting the random unbounded length of the function name define and inflate and randomize the indentation. It also makes it easier to use long descriptive function names without fucking up the indentation.

  setup_spi(&adc,
            mode=SPI_01,
            rate=15,
            cs_control=CS_MUXED,
            cs=0x01
  );
  setup_spoo(&adc,
             mode=SPI_01,
             rate=15,
             cs_control=CS_MUXED,
             cs=0x01
  );
  setup_s(&adc,
          mode=SPI_01,
          rate=15,
          cs_control=CS_MUXED,
          cs=0x01
  );
  validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s(&adc,
                                   mode=SPI_01,
                                   rate=15,
                                   cs_control=CS_MUXED,
                                   cs=0x01
  );
DemocracyFTW2 3 days ago | parent [-]

Here, fixed it for you:

    setup_spi(
      &adc,
      mode        = SPI_01,
      rate        = 15,
      cs_control  = CS_MUXED,
      cs          = 0x01 );
    setup_spoo(
      &adc,
      mode        = SPI_01,
      rate        = 15,
      cs_control  = CS_MUXED,
      cs          = 0x01 );
    setup_s(
      &adc,
      mode        = SPI_01,
      rate        = 15,
      cs_control  = CS_MUXED,
      cs          = 0x01 );
    validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s(
      &adc,
      mode        = SPI_01,
      rate        = 15,
      cs_control  = CS_MUXED,
      cs          = 0x01 );
Marazan 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is harder to read than the long line version.

However, it is the formatting I adopt when forced to bow down to line length formatters.

lenkite 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Err..I find the short-line version easier to read. Esp if you need to horizontally scroll.

This is why a Big Dictator should just make a standard. Everyone who doesn't like the standard approach just gets used to it.

someothherguyy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

to you, to me, it reads nicely, and thus the issue -- editors should have built in formatters that don't actually edit source code, but offer a view

thaumasiotes 4 days ago | parent [-]

To me, that reads fine, but it has lost the property elevation wanted, which was that it's easy to compare the values assigned to any particular parameter across multiple calls. In your version you can only read one call at a time.

IlikeKitties 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm suprised. I find the short-line version to be much better.

komali2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Devs have different pixel count screens. Your table wrapped for me. The short line equivalent looks best on my screen.

Thus 80 or perhaps 120 char line lengths!

account42 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

So fix your setup? Why should others with wider screens leave space on their screen empty for your sake?

Especially 80 characters is a ridiculously low limit that encourages people to name their variables and functions some abbreviated shit like mbstowcs instead of something more descriptive.

komali2 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

My main machine is an ultrawide, but I usually have multiple files open, and text reads best top-down so I stack files side-by-side. If someone has like, a 240 character long line, that is annoying. My editor will soft wrap and indicate this in the fringe of course but it's still a little obnoxious.

80 is probably too low these days but it's nice for git commit header length at least.

genericspammer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you guys never read code as side by side diffs in the browser?

komali2 4 days ago | parent [-]

Never mind in a browser, this is how I review a ton of code, either in magit or lazygit or in multiple terminals.

delusional 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> So fix your setup? Why should others with wider screens leave space on their screen empty for your sake?

What a terrible attitude to have when working with other people.

"Oh, I'm the only one who writes Python? Fix your setup. why should I, who know python, not write it for your sake?"

"Oh, I'm the only one who speaks German? Fix your setup. Why should I, who know German, not speak it for your sake?"

How about doing it because your colleagues, who you presumably like collaborating with to reach a goal, asks you to?

balamatom 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What do you do about the "oh, I'm the only one who cares about [???]? should I just fucking kill myself then?" Many such cases.

>How about doing it because your colleagues, who you presumably like collaborating with to reach a goal, asks you to?

If a someone wants me to do a certain thing in a certain way, they simply have to state it in terms of:

- some benefit they want to achieve

- some drawback they want to avoid

- as little as an acknowledged unexamined preference like "hey I personally feel more comfortable with approach X, how bout we try that instead"

I'm happy to learn from their perspective, and gladly go out of my way to accomodate them. Sometimes even against my better judgment, but hell, I still prefer to err on the side of being considerate. Just like you say, I like to work with people in terms of a shared goal, and just like you do, in every scenario I prefer to assume that's what's going on.

If, however, someone insists on certain approaches while never going deeper in their explanations than arbitrary non-falsifiable qualifiers such as "best practice", "modern", "clean", etc., then I know they haven't actually examined those choices that they now insist others should comply with. They're just parroting whatever version they imagine of industry-wide consensus describes their accidental comfort zone. And then boy do they hate my "make your setup assume less! it's the only way to be sure!". But no, I ain't reifying their meme instead of what I've seen work with my own two.

delusional 4 days ago | parent [-]

> If, however, someone insists on certain approaches while never going deeper in their explanations than arbitrary non-falsifiable qualifiers such as "best practice", "modern", "clean"

You're moving the goalposts of this discussion. The guy I was responding to said "fix your setup" to another person saying "Your table wrapped for me. The short line equivalent looks best on my screen." That's a stated preference based on a benefit he'd like to achieve.

We are not discussing "best practice" type arguments here.

balamatom 3 days ago | parent [-]

"Best practice" type arguments are the universal excuse for remaining inconsiderate of the fact that different people interact with code differently, but fair enough I guess

account42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, I don't think we should discourage people from using Python or German just because you don't want to learn those particular languages either.

Working together with others should not mean having to limit everyone to the lowest common denominator, especially when there are better options for helping those with limitations that don't impact everyone else.

DonHopkins 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So haul your wide monitor around with your laptop, you mean? No.

Just use descriptive variable names, and break your lines up logically and consistently. They are not mutually exclusive, and your code will be much easier for you and other people to read and edit and maintain, and git diffs will be much more succinct and precise.

saagarjha 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I softwrap so I don't care about line length myself but I read code on a phone a lot so people who hardwrap at larger columns are a little more annoying

maratc 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why should others with wider screens leave space on their screen empty for your sake?

Because "I" might be older or sight-impaired, and have "my" font at size 32, and it actually fills "my" (wider than yours) screen completely?

Would you advise me to "fix my eyes" too? I'd love to!

"Why should I accommodate others" is a terrible take.

rerdavies 3 days ago | parent [-]

I would advise you to buy one of these: https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curved-us...

80-column line lengths is a pretty severe ask.

brettermeier 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Living in the 80's XD

tsimionescu 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am at the opposite end. Having any line length constraints whatsoever seems like a massive waste of time every time I've seen it. Let the lines be as long as I need them, and accept that your colleagues will not be idiots. A guideline for newer colleagues is great, but auto-formatters messing with line lengths is a source of significant annoyance.

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent [-]

> auto-formatters messing with line lengths is a source of significant annoyance.

Unless they have been a thing since the start of a project; existing code should never be affected by formatters, that's unnecessary churn. If a formatter is introduced later on in a project (or a formatting rule changed), it should be applied to all code in one go and no new code accepted if it hasn't passed through the formatter.

I think nobody should have to think about code formatting, and no diff should contain "just" formatting changes unless there's also an updated formatting rule in there. But also, you should be able to escape the automatic formatting if there is a specific use case for it, like the data table mentioned earlier.

forrestthewoods 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Define high? I think 120 is pretty reasonable. Maybe even as high as 140.

Log statements however I think have an effectively unbounded length. Nothing I hate more than a stupid linter turning a sprinkling of logs into 7 line monsters. cargo fmt is especially bad about this. It’s so bad.

skinner927 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I still prefer 80. I won’t (publicly) scoff at 100 though. IMO 120 is reasonable for HTML and Java, but that’s about it.

Sent from my 49” G9 Ultrawide.

forrestthewoods 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ugh. 80 is the worst. For C++ it’s entirely unreasonable. I definitely can not reconcile “linters make code easier to read” and “80 width is good”. Those are mutually exclusive imho.

What I actually want from a linter is “120, unless the trailing bits aren’t interesting in which case 140+ is fine”. The ideal rule isn’t hard and fast! It’s not pure science. There’s an art to it.

guenthert 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Obviously 100 is the right choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length#cite_note-dykip-8

Joker_vD 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Give a try to 132 mode, maybe? It was the standard paper width for printouts since, well, forever.

balamatom 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's actually just weirdly specific enough to be worth a shot.

psychoslave 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Printing industry have not been anything close to forever, even writing is relatively novel compared to human spoken languages.

All that said, I'm interested with this 132 number, where does it come from?

Joker_vD 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Since forever" as in, "since the start of electronic computing"; we started printing the programs out on paper almost immediately. The 132 columns comes from the IBM's ancient line printers (circa 1957); most of other manufacturers followed the suit, and even the glass ttys routinely had 132-column mode (for VT100 you had to buy a RAM extension, for later models it was just there, I believe). My point is, most of the people did understand, back even in the sixties, that 80-columns wide screen is tiny, especially for reading the source code.

dcminter 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Printers aside the VT220 terminal from DEC had a 132 column mode. Probably it was aping a standard printer column count. Most of the time we used the 80 column mode as it was far more readable on what was quite a small screen.

guenthert 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not only a small screen by modern standards, but the hardware lacked the needed resolution. The marketing brochure claims a 10x10 dot matrix. That will be for the 80 column mode. That works out to respectable 800 pixel horizontally, barely sufficient 6x10 pixel in 132 column mode. There was even a double-high, double-width mode for easier reading ;-)

Interesting here perhaps is that even back then it was recognized, that for different situations, different display modes were of advantage.

dcminter 4 days ago | parent [-]

> There was even a double-high, double-width mode for easier reading

I'd forgotten that; now that waa a fugly font. I don't think anyone ever used it (aside from the "Setup" banner on the settings screen)

I think the low pixel count was rather mitigated by the persistence of phospher though - there's reproductions of the fonts that had to take this into account; see the stuff about font stretching here: https://vt100.net/dec/vt220/glyphs

bloak 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The IBM 1403 line printer, apparently.

typpilol 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's literally my setup everywhere. 120 for html/java/JavaScript and 80 elsewhere.

Really suites each language imo Although I could probably get away with 80, habit to use tailwind classes can get messy compared to 120

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent [-]

Caveat, my personal experience is mainly limited to JS/TS, Java, and associated languages. 120 is fine for most use cases; I've only seen 80 work in Go, but that one also has unwritten rules that prefer reducing indentation as much as possible; "line-of-sight programming", no object-oriented programming (which gives almost everything a layer of indentation already), but also it has no ternary statements, no try/catch blocks, etc. It's a very left-aligned language, which is great for not unnecessarily using up that 80 column "budget".

anilakar 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But a 49" ultrawide is just two 27" monitors side by side. :-)

account42 4 days ago | parent [-]

Better yet, its three monitors with more reasonable aspect ratios side by side.

16:9 is rarely what you want for anything that is mainly text.

setopt 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s tricky to find an objective optimum. Personally I’ve been happy with up to 100 chars per line (aim for 80 but some lines are just more readable without wrapping).

But someone will always have to either scroll horizontally or wrap the text. I’m speaking as someone who often views code on my phone, with a ~40 characters wide screen.

In typography, it’s well accepted that an average of ~66 chars per line increases readability of bulk text, with the theory being that short lines require you to mentally «jump» to the beginning of the next line frequently which interrupts flow, but long lines make it harder to mentally keep track of where you are in each line. There is however a difference between newspapers and books, since shorter ~40-char columns allows rapid skimming by moving your eyes down a column instead of zigzagging through the text.

But I don’t think these numbers translate directly to code, which is usually written with most lines indented (on the left) and most lines shorter than the maximum (few statements are so long). Depending on language, I could easily imagine a line length of 100 leading to an average of ~66 chars per line.

fmbb 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the theory being that short lines require you to mentally «jump» to the beginning of the next line frequently which interrupts flow, but long lines make it harder to mentally keep track of where you are in each line.

In my experience, with programming you rarely have lines of 140 printable characters. A lot of it is indentation. So it’s probably rarely a problem to find your way back on the next line.

forrestthewoods 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t think code is comparable. Reading code is far more stochastic than reading a novel.

For C/C++ headers I absolutely despise verbose doxygen bullshit commented a spreading relatively straightforward functions across 10 lines of comments and args.

I want to be able to quickly skim function names and then read arguments only if deemed relevant. I don’t want to read every single word.

layer8 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

100 is the sweet spot, IMO.

I like splitting long text as in log statements into appropriate source lines, just like you would a Markdown paragraph. As in:

    logger.info(
        "I like splitting long text as in log statements " +
        "into ” + suitablelAdjective + " source lines, " +
        "just like you would a Markdown paragraph. " +
        "As in: " + quine);
I agree that many formatters are bad about this, like introducing an indent for all but the first content line, or putting the concatenation operator in the front instead of the back, thereby also causing non-uniform alinkemt of the text content.
forrestthewoods 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Splitting log messages across lines like that is pure evil. Your punishment is death by brazen Bull. Sorry I don’t make the rules, just how it is. :(

saagarjha 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This makes it really annoying to grep for log messages. I can't control what you do in your codebase but I will always argue against this the ones I work on.

layer8 4 days ago | parent [-]

I haven’t found this to be a problem in practice. You generally can’t grep for the complete message anyway due to inserted arguments. Picking a distinctive formulation from the log message virtually always does the trick. I do take care to not place line breaks in the middle of a semantic unit if possible.

saagarjha 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, I find the part of the message that doesn't have interpolated arguments in it. The problem is that the literal part of the string might be broken up across lines.

bogomog 3 days ago | parent [-]

And to add to this, you rarely need to read a log message when just visually scanning code, its fine going off the screen.

maleldil 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Nitpick: this looks like Python. You don't need + to concatenate string literal. This is the type of thing a linter can catch.

Sohcahtoa82 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

IMO, implicit string concatenation is a bug, not a feature.

I once made a stupid mistake of having a list of directories to delete:

    directories_to_delete = (
        "/some/dir"
        "/some/other/dir"
    )
    for dir in directories_to_delete:
        shutil.rmtree(dir)
Can you spot the error? I somehow forgot the comma in the list. That meant that rather than creating a tuple of directories, I created a single string. So when the `for` loop ran, it iterated on individual characters of the string. What was the first character? "/" of course.

I essentially did an `rm -rf /` because of the implicit concatenation.

layer8 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s actually Java, where the “+” is necessary.

jitl 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

every editor can wrap text these days. good ones will even indent the wrapped text properly

giveita 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thats a slippery slope towards storing semantics and displaying locally preferred syntax ;)

jitl 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I prefer storing plain text and displaying locally preferred syntax, to a degree.

With some expressions, like lookup tables or bit strings, hand wrapping and careful white space use is the difference between “understandable and intuitive” and “completely meaningless”. In JS world, `// prettier-ignore` above such an expression preserves it but ideally there’s a more universal way to express this.

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And that's fine, as long as whatever ends up in version control is standardized. Locally you can tweak your settings to have / have not word wrapping, 2-8 space indentation, etc.

But that's the core of this article, too; since then it's normalized to store the plain text source code in git and share it, but it mentions a code and formatting agnostic storage format, where it's down to people's editors (and diff tools, etc) to render the code. It's not actually unusual, since things like images are also unreadable if you look at their source code, but tools like Github will render them in a human digestable format.

NL807 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the bikeshedding has begun...

thfuran 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Who’s going to be bikeshedding (about formatting) when everyone can individually configure their own formatting rules without affecting anyone else?

giveita 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's the nuclear reactor in this analogy?

pferde 4 days ago | parent [-]

That the values could have been extracted to an array of structs, and iterated over in a small cycle that calls the function for each set of values.

virtue3 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

was going to say the same thing.

Boy that was fast.

bogomog 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's why Python should have gone all-in on significant spaces: tabs for blocks, spaces after tabs for line continuation

DemocracyFTW2 3 days ago | parent [-]

Mixing spaces and tabs is a surefire way to ruin everything.

rightbyte 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this a subtle pro-tab pinch?

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You still have to minimize the wrapping that happens, because wrapped lines of code tend to be continuous instead of being properly spaced so as to make its parts individually readable.

hulitu 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> every editor can wrap text these days.

could. Yesterday notepad (win 10) just plainly refused.

jitl 3 days ago | parent [-]

Windows is so weird

appellations 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I forget there are people who don’t configure softwrap in their text editor.

Some languages (java) really need the extra horizontal space if you can afford it and aren’t too hard to read when softwrapped.

jghn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’d agree with you except for the trend over the last 10 years or so to set limits back to the Stone Age. For a while there we seemed to be settling on somewhere around 150 characters and yet these days we’re back to the 80-100 range.