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.