Re. The horses ass -> width of the locomotive/car: From snopes we have the verdict that it is “Partly true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons.”
Re. 80 columns. I just looked at my screen and I have several different terminals, all at different widths and heights, depending on what I’m doing with them. Need to see a large Pandas data frame? Maximize terminal to full screen. Just need to run a small background command? A tiny 20x5 terminal does the trick. Why waste screen space.
(Ok three points) Re. 80 columns for code. I HATE long lines. Yes, I can see that occasionally you will have long expressions. I think that just means you should be refactoring that expression into multiple smaller expressions which you then string together. THAT reduced cognitive load. Not long lines. Properly done, breaking up a long line into multiple smaller lines decreases cognitive load, even without refactoring into variables - you’ve done a visual kind of refactoring already.
There’s a version of the monkey story in which the monkeys do get firehosed and the lesson is “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat.” Kind of amazing how we can pick our parables to prove any point, no?
Also, 80 col = 8 inch wide paper x 10 characters-per-inch typewriter typeface. If you want to edit a document which you’re going to print on letter-sized paper at 10cpi, 80 columns is a good size for the monitor!
Which is probably why punchcards were made that size too.
12 cpi typewriters were also common, and some typewriters were wide enough to load paper landscape. 11 inches wide x 12 cpi = 132 columns, so that’s where that weird number comes from!
Actually, it’s more the tyranny of the human visual system.
Ye olde cards were designed that size because that was a comfortable width to read a line (with a little space for line numbers and card numbers on either end).
Strangely enough my eyes are pretty much the same eyes I had when I used punch cards…
…and although the youngsters around me have better eyesight, they seem to be human as far as I can tell.
Ye olde cards were designed that size because that was a comfortable width to read a line (with a little space for line numbers and card numbers on either end).
Actually if you look further back in history “punched X” came in every size, shape and format. Big cards, wooden cards, paper tape…
I personally dealt with paper tape and hollerith 80 column punch cards.
The paper tape machines where smaller / simpler / cheaper, but a right pain to deal with, to read or edit.
Given a choice, I gladly sprang to use 80 column punch card instead of paper tape.
Citation: Me and a bunch of guys I worked with in the early days.
Even if Hollerith didn’t investigate typical line lengths (I doubt it, I very much doubt it), sysadmins the world over spec'ed the best equipment from the available range (which was way way weirder and wider than the Wintel/Apple world of today.)
What was “best”? What suited programming / data entry best.
My sneaking suspicion had been one of the old “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.” But I wasn’t around back then. I can only imagine the variety of weird computing inputs.
Hmm, actually… a survey of them might make for a neat blog post…
Hmm. Two points
Re. The horses ass -> width of the locomotive/car: From snopes we have the verdict that it is “Partly true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons.”
Re. 80 columns. I just looked at my screen and I have several different terminals, all at different widths and heights, depending on what I’m doing with them. Need to see a large Pandas data frame? Maximize terminal to full screen. Just need to run a small background command? A tiny 20x5 terminal does the trick. Why waste screen space.
(Ok three points) Re. 80 columns for code. I HATE long lines. Yes, I can see that occasionally you will have long expressions. I think that just means you should be refactoring that expression into multiple smaller expressions which you then string together. THAT reduced cognitive load. Not long lines. Properly done, breaking up a long line into multiple smaller lines decreases cognitive load, even without refactoring into variables - you’ve done a visual kind of refactoring already.
There’s a version of the monkey story in which the monkeys do get firehosed and the lesson is “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat.” Kind of amazing how we can pick our parables to prove any point, no?
Also, 80 col = 8 inch wide paper x 10 characters-per-inch typewriter typeface. If you want to edit a document which you’re going to print on letter-sized paper at 10cpi, 80 columns is a good size for the monitor!
Which is probably why punchcards were made that size too.
12 cpi typewriters were also common, and some typewriters were wide enough to load paper landscape. 11 inches wide x 12 cpi = 132 columns, so that’s where that weird number comes from!
Actually, it’s more the tyranny of the human visual system.
Ye olde cards were designed that size because that was a comfortable width to read a line (with a little space for line numbers and card numbers on either end).
Strangely enough my eyes are pretty much the same eyes I had when I used punch cards…
…and although the youngsters around me have better eyesight, they seem to be human as far as I can tell.
Citation needed?
Actually if you look further back in history “punched X” came in every size, shape and format. Big cards, wooden cards, paper tape…
I personally dealt with paper tape and hollerith 80 column punch cards.
The paper tape machines where smaller / simpler / cheaper, but a right pain to deal with, to read or edit.
Given a choice, I gladly sprang to use 80 column punch card instead of paper tape.
Citation: Me and a bunch of guys I worked with in the early days.
Even if Hollerith didn’t investigate typical line lengths (I doubt it, I very much doubt it), sysadmins the world over spec'ed the best equipment from the available range (which was way way weirder and wider than the Wintel/Apple world of today.)
What was “best”? What suited programming / data entry best.
Fair enough! Survival of the fittest.
My sneaking suspicion had been one of the old “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.” But I wasn’t around back then. I can only imagine the variety of weird computing inputs.
Hmm, actually… a survey of them might make for a neat blog post…