Re: AWS Coding Styles (and about boring plain-linear text files in the end)

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:45:42 +0100, Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> a  
écrit:
> Good point.  This is the 21st century, technology has advanced to the
> point where it shouldn't be difficult to do this.  Of course, maybe
> that case should be made by someone who isn't using a 1970s editor and
> sticking to a traditional line width based on punch cards. :) :)
Just wanted to underline again what Pascal Obry also said (and I fully  
agree with, and others too) : the line length limitation is not due to any  
inheritance from old and obsolete systems, this has ergonomic motivations.  
He pointed the example of news-paper. The typical width of a news paper or  
magazine text is even lower : 40 or 50 characters width is a common  
layout. If you doubt, then a question : where do you think these old  
systems get this default screen width of 80 characters ? You think they  
were not able to do it wider ? Answer : from the ergonomic principle  
stated above. 80 characters width was not due to technical limitations,  
this was a target specification.

Now, to go further: terminal may also be used to draw nice text-UI  
(especially with colored terminals). In this context, 80 characters is not  
enough, because then the UI eats on the width which is expected to be  
available for the text. To ease text UI, there use to be wider standard  
(120 characters if my mind is right, 120 characters is really better for a  
MidnightCommander). Also about the 40 or 50 characters of typical  
newspapers and magazines: the width used in miscellaneous computer source  
texts (C, SGML, FORTRAN), was larger I suppose for the requirement of  
indentations, which also eats on the text width too. Then, there is the  
reason of longer word in typical computer texts, because these are longer  
composite word, with no space (i.e. “This unavoidable object” vs  
“This_Unavoidable_Object”).

If there is an area where we still unfortunately stick to old obsolete  
systems, the is not about text width, this about two other points: 1)  
ASCII heritage vs Unicode (using either Emacs or VIM for multi-language  
text files is simply *impossible* most of the time, while OTH, the basic  
NotePad of Windows 98 is perfectly able in this area). 2) Raw linear text  
(this gonna be the subject of a coming topic I will later opened, coming  
in a few days… I've not yet finished to write it).

With these two points, and especially the second (the first slowly evolve,  
except with some old editors), we, indeed are really sticked in the past;  
not with line length which must be limited.

However, your comment makes me think about another argument for the topic  
I will open a later day. Thanks for that.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

“I am fluent in ASCII” [Warren 2010]