Exceptional coding style

mist none at none.none
Tue Jan 15 08:31:04 PST 2013


On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 16:22:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:56:34AM +0100, mist wrote:
>> On Monday, 14 January 2013 at 23:57:18 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> >This generally comes up as an argument in these discussions, 
>> >but I
>> >don't buy it. Not all development is done on a desktop with a 
>> >huge
>> >screen. And even then, there is always something to put on it.
>> >What window manager are you using?
>> 
>> Well, I hardly can imagine rationale behind using netbook for
>> serious development aside from being on trip. Even being 
>> forced to
>> work in ssh to some legacy shell ( I have that unpleasant 
>> experience
>> :( ) usually limits your term width, not height.
>
> Heh. On the contrary, I find ssh to be a pleasant experience. 
> Most
> GUI-heavy editors are so painfully inefficient to use that I 
> find VT100
> emulators far more pleasant to work with.

I am vim user myself, but some legacy shells did not support more 
than 80 symbol width, thus the pain and according code style 
guidelines for us poor programmers on that project :)

>
>> I am using Gnome Shell, but working mostly in full-screen
>> undecorated terminal. It is approximately 75 to 85 lines of 
>> vertical
>> space in my setup.
>
> I have a 1600x1200 screen, and an 18-point font, which gives me 
> 93*41
> terminal size. I find that just about right. (Like I said, I 
> maximize
> everything, and anything significantly smaller than 18-point 
> font, I
> find quite unreadable.)

Well this is probably the main reason of different spacing 
tastes. I have literally twice as much vertical space fitting ( 
1920x1080 @ 9pt ), can imagine how it makes you favor more 
compact style.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list