Re:Why is 80 characters the 'standard' limit for code width?
by fredley on Sunday June 01, 2014 @05:00PM
(#7830655)
Asker of the question here, you are indeed spot on, Windows 95 was the first OS I used!
The train of reasoning here reminds me of another story (which I think has been on HN before): Why is a space shuttle engine 4' 8.5" wide?
Re:Why is 80 characters the 'standard' limit for code width?
by slavik81 on Sunday June 01, 2014 @05:38PM
(#7830789)
Snopes suggests that story is a little inaccurate:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp
Re:Why is 80 characters the 'standard' limit for code width?
by rayiner on Sunday June 01, 2014 @04:08PM
(#7830441)
Because an Emacs window split into two 80x25 frames fits perfectly on a 13" Macbook Air. ;)
Re:Why is 80 characters the 'standard' limit for code width?
by drinchev on Sunday June 01, 2014 @04:33PM
(#7830534)
Hey.. I still remember my first programming experience with Turbo Pascal running with MS-DOS 5 and I didn't know how this 80 characters per line popped up in history. I remember there was something like .. "MODE CON..." that I could change the chars, but I didn't know why and how the defaults were settled everywhere the same. Kudos for the OP asking this question.
Re:Why is 80 characters the 'standard' limit for code width?
by onmydesk on Sunday June 01, 2014 @04:51PM
(#7830610)
> It's funny to start seeing more and more questions from people who started using computers with Windows 95.
I don't know why they stuck with it!
C64s and amigas.. when computers were cool before microsoft ruined it! Now we've been saved by apple, hurah
Actually, not it's not, little punks making me feel old, get off my lawn.