On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:44:46 +0900, Travis Smith <zultan.durin / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:11:59 +0900, Nikolai Weibull
> <mailing-lists.ruby-talk / rawuncut.elitemail.org > wrote:
>> * James Edward Gray II (Mar 22, 2005 23:50):
>> Seriously, though, the 80 character boundary is a thing of the
>> past. Terminals (not to mention emulators) can be made wider, 132
>> being a good "standard" setting, so it's not even about backwards
>> compatibility anymore. I find that I can write code the way I
>> want it if I'm not constrained to 80 characters per line. (I only
>> switched to a 132-character-wide terminal about 3 months ago,
>> though, so I may change my mind yet again.),
> 
> I disagree. I use 80 character width for everything. I have three
> xterms spanned across my screen - all 80 characters wide. My IDEs
> have the size of the window limited to 80 characters wide. It's
> the perfect size. If a line goes too far then I know it's too
> complicated (expect strings, string often span lines) or I'm
> writing in Java. I think Java kills the 80 characters wides...
> That's another story though.
> 
> I think everyone who doesn't use 80 characters (or less) should be
> shot. But just in the foot, so they'll learn the error of their
> ways. :)

I don't always use 80 characters. Most of the time? Yes. Other
times? No. Some of it is because of the vagaries of the Ruby
interpreter -- there are times when it is less readable to have the
line extend beyond the 80-character "limit", or it is simply not
possible (e.g., certain "raise Blah unless ..." type conditions).

I simply do what's pragmatic.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca