7319.    User: Anonymous   Post date: 2023/03/07(Tue) 12:28:14          
Now I feel like 80 is too high (;´Д`)

7322. >Anonymous-san   User: Anonymous   Post date: 2023/03/07(Tue) 14:09:11          
> Now I feel like 80 is too high (;´Д`)

The reason I (and many graybeards of old) use 72ch per line is cuz many 
terminals back in the day were 80 columns wide, which derives from the 
programming punch cards of early computers (the big ones that took up a 
whole room) 

Many of those early machines would only read and compile the first 72 
columns of the card, and the remaining 8 columns would be used for 
metadata, flags to say a line was a comment, etc. 

When things moved to terminal displays in the 70s, writing in 72ch 
lines on 80 columns left you room to comment things out, add ">" s for 
quoting, and more ヽ(´ー`)ノ

Reference: 2023/03/07(Tue) 13:28:14

7325. >Anonymous-san   User: Anonymous   Post date: 2023/03/07(Tue) 14:31:30          
> > Now I feel like 80 is too high (;´Д`)   
> The reason I (and many graybeards of old) use 72ch per line is cuz many 
> terminals back in the day were 80 columns wide, which derives from the 
> programming punch cards of early computers (the big ones that took up a 
> whole room)    
> Many of those early machines would only read and compile the first 72  
> columns of the card, and the remaining 8 columns would be used for    
> metadata, flags to say a line was a comment, etc.    
> When things moved to terminal displays in the 70s, writing in 72ch    
> lines on 80 columns left you room to comment things out, add ">" s for 
  
> quoting, and more ヽ(´ー`)ノ   
   
I see. Now I think it just looks better, so I set it to 72 ( ´ω`) 
 
It's still acting a bit weird on replying page, adding unnecessary spaces 
between commented lines despite them not passing 72ch

Reference: 2023/03/07(Tue) 15:09:11

3 posts found. ←Return