News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Software Engineering at Google (2020) [pdf] by eadmund on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @09:30AM (#31260103)
> You are repeating an argument you read somewhere, not actually something you believe.

I think I am a better judge of my beliefs than you are.

> No-one sizes their terminals to 80chars.

Mine open at 24×80, although to be honest I normally tile them instead. And I much prefer code formatted to be 80 chars wide, with functions that fit within a page or two of text.

Re:Software Engineering at Google (2020) [pdf] by sly010 on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @10:06AM (#31260618)
> And I much prefer code formatted to be 80 chars wide, with functions that fit within a page or two of text.

Wouldn't you agree that largely depends on the code in question? Of course I also "prefer" shorter lines in general, but that relationship is somewhat linear: 81 is not infinitely worse than 80. If the function in question would be more readable with just 1-2 lines that happens to be 83 chars, wouldn't you opt for that over placing some arbitrary closing bracket on the next line? Whether a code is more readable (for a human) should really not be decided by an arbitrary technical limit from 50 years ago. We have code reviews for that.

btw, as far as I know the linux kernel has a _recommended_ 100 char maximum now.

Re:Software Engineering at Google (2020) [pdf] by skirmish on Wednesday May 04, 2022 @01:27PM (#31263399)
And then you get Go readability reviewers enforcing a single letter (!) variable names so that everything fits in 80 columns. Do you prefer that?