Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by johnisgood on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @11:15AM (#38855779)

I think it is important to strike a balance here, see Java codebases for the other extreme end of the spectrum where the variable name may not fit within 80 column width.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by bayindirh on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @11:36AM (#38856088)

Of course. I name things as "configuration_storage", but not "configuration_factory_singleton_configuration_stub_constructor". I've been there, seen the horror.

Never again.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by acchow on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @11:59AM (#38856402)

In 20 years with growing display sizes and resolutions, I’d have hoped 100 or 120 columns replaced 80

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by spencerchubb on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @12:06PM (#38856501)

I thought the column recommendation of 80 was about eye movement and reading speed, not display width.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by ncallaway on Wednesday January 03, 2024 @12:36PM (#38856912)

I think it was both, and has become more the former now.

My preferred line-width for code would be 80 characters, not including indentation for the line, with a maximum of 120 characters including indentation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cross-platform Rust rewrite of the GNU coreutils by lenkite on Friday January 05, 2024 @02:09PM (#38883268)

Apple OS programming beats name length for Java anyday but it never gets a bad rep thanks to apple's reality distortion field.

CMMetadataFormatDescriptionCreateWithMetadataFormatDescriptionAndMetadataSpecifications

[ Parent | on HN ]