|
Technically, this sentence have no sense at all. 
'Cause, this is aspect ratio, and it can be anything given the same width.
...Unless you try to fit your code on exactly one screen. But this is really unpractical to break your code so that every part would fit on one page.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a rebel.
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
The cinematic quality and suspense for coding really isn't that good though. What is coming up next?.?.?.? OMG AN IF STATEMENT.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
After perusing the posts/answers in this forum, I can realistically conclude that NONE of you know how many columns a Hollerith card contained nor do you know why a standard width for paper is 8.5 inches. You also may not be familiar with non-proportional fonts since Courier is passe' now. Those of us in the "coding" profession for more than twenty years had our styles dictated by the width of a sheet of fanfold paper in a thingy called a "line printer". Some of you may have seen one of these on display in the Smithsonian and not even recognized it as a printer. AH, for the good old days...amber 12" crt monitors, 320 x 200 graphics, card punch machines(anyone know what an 029 control card did?) and none of these gooey things that stick to your screen.
Been doin' this for too darn long! 
|
|
|
|
|
TomS45 wrote: how many columns a Hollerith card contained
You got me there, never used one, I was raised on DEC equipment in the 1980s.
My father brought some home from work once (in the 1970s), but didn't explain them.
TomS45 wrote: a sheet of fanfold paper
Wide or narrow?
You didn't mention "hard copy terminals"[^], a printer with a keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
... why standard US (as opposed to the rest of the world) paper width is 8.5 inches. Mainly because nobody knows, and you certainly aren't nobody.
The best theory indicates that the adoption of the standard probably predates you, old as you may be. But Reagan's administration made it official for all government use.
Hey, who knew Reagan actually did something useful (if still backwards by world standards)?
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
Naruki wrote: Reagan actually did something
I though he was out of the loop on that. 
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall something about paper being made in roughly 9" x 12" size by hand and then trimmed to get straight edges but that may not be fully substantiated. As far as the rest of the world and the US being alike - they're metric and we aren't (although an inch was defined in 1866 as being 25.4mm). Ask anybody how to convert from gallons to liters and you'll probably get, "I'll get back to you on that." Actually, Reagan mandated that the government stop using the "standard 8" x 10 1/2" that the US government had used since Herbert Hoover's days and start using 8 1/2' x 11" which was the business standard and which most copy machines contained.
As you may have surmised, my post was made with tongue in cheek and I certainly did not expect anyone to take it seriously. 
|
|
|
|
|
To do that, you must ask Cecil.
To flesh that out a bit, check Wiki.
Technically, and this may surprise you, the US is also metric (at least since 1866). We just don't know it yet.
As for your last comment... You've been programming for more than 20 years and you've never met a geek? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
TomS45 wrote: 8 1/2' x 11"
That won't fit in my printer.
|
|
|
|
|
OK - so I accidently hit the wrong key. Big fricking deal!
|
|
|
|
|
I remember a lot of things, since I've been coding since about 1979 or so. That's a long time, and I had numerous different "computers" like the TI-99/4A (anyone remember those?) and at one time an Atari 800 I believe. Back then the Commodore was the big deal for most people, but I just couldn't afford one! My buddy had one, but even though I was smarter than he was, he never let me touch it. I guess he didn't want the humiliation.. he he. My first "real" computer was in 1991, a 30386/DX running at 40 BIG mhz. I never owned a printer until about 15 years ago or so, so I really only worried about being able to read the code on the screen.
Gary W. Morris, Entepreneur
|
|
|
|
|
Well lets see id these old brain cells still work. A Hollerith card had 80 columns and an 029 control card was used to set up fields for data entry. The operator would read the control card through the keypunch and it would set the keypunch into numeric or alpha mode for the operator and also allow the operator to skip empty columns. Printers?...we lived and died by the printed word (program listings and memory dumps). Many a night I stood kicking the front panel on a 1911 printer as it printed out a memory dump because my program blew up. Ahhh the good old days...may they never come again. Like tom I was a programmer when programming wasn't even cool. Damn I feel old!
Long live S0C7 
Larry Miller
|
|
|
|
|
 Larry - You must be older than dirt, too! My first computer was a MITS Altair put together as a kit! Long live 8008's. Then had a friend get the SWTP computer (SouthWest Technical Products) as a real kit - transistors, IC's, resistors, capacitors, switches - everything had to be soldered to PC boards and the wired together. It actually worked the first time! I started my programming career in 1976 using a hammer, chisel and stone slabs!
Of course, card sorters were the "computers" on all the TV shows back then.
Take care. Retirement can't be far off!
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Do not fold, spindle, or masturbate.
Er, I might have fogged a bit on the precise wording.
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, done that. Been in this for 34 years and only started at 33.
I also dont know why people need fancy's like smileys to express themselves. Doesnt this work anymore 
To answer the question. Any method, function or whatever should fit in 80 columns and not be longer than a A4 sheet of paper can hold. Anything wider or longer becomes difficult to read as a unit. Use macros for long expressions that repeat themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, you're an old bugger! I'm in my 30th year of this and started at 29. I'm just a youngster.
|
|
|
|
|
Being a FORTRAN programmer I remember having to read cards that did not print. You got pretty good after a while. I also remember using a 300 baud modem. And to think I complain about DSL.
djj
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Studio on 1280x1024 == 125 columns (with Solution Explorer/Class View/VA X View taking some of the space).
It seems to be a pretty fair standard to me. 80 is too small nowadays and 200 is too much for normal people.
I rarely ever print code.
|
|
|
|
|
DrFrankenstein90 wrote: It seems to be a pretty fair standard to me. 80 is too small nowadays and 200 is too much for normal people.
I agree with this point. Although I'll use 120 instead of 125 to be compatible with other systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Why wasn't this a choice in the survey? We rarely print our code anymore and screen size in itself isn't really an issue.
RZ
|
|
|
|
|
Readability, to me, is the main issue. It is rare that I print out code any more. By breaking up long lines and indenting the continuation lines, the code becomes easier to read and understand: that means, in my book, easier to debug.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed; even if I didn't print, I still wouldn't use the longest lines my (current) monitor can display.
|
|
|
|
|
I consider that anything beyond 125 columns is bad practice. Even if your screen looks like a movie theater screen.
A programmer should always consider that some other guy will read the code, sooner or later.
Jm
www.menendezpoo.com
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
