Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 10:49:59 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <86senuuey0.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vpkmq0$21php$1@dont-email.me> <vpl62m$250af$1@dont-email.me> <87frk10w51.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <vpn8vs$2jmv1$1@dont-email.me> <vpn92i$86q$1@reader1.panix.com> <vpnfmn$2ksdj$1@dont-email.me> <vpni33$2ld5k$1@dont-email.me> <vpnrld$2mq8h$2@dont-email.me> <vpourn$30a9h$1@dont-email.me> <vpq1es$35inm$1@dont-email.me> <vpr019$3b2ld$1@dont-email.me> <20250228144442.00002037@yahoo.com> <868qpnw2sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250303141305.00002119@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:49:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6e9dfb039af0c0bf4d4ce41d1363f2d2";
	logging-data="1514301"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/ZoDzotW/p+pj8/7Sc8FdIfuy/tgFYzQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RDRDd6/QiThImmJH7QZxx/MnoZo=
	sha1:THx6dbYeOq6XhnChox2cCmv9vjM=
Bytes: 3992

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000
>>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square,
>>>
>>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than
>>> square.
>>
>> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old
>> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height).
>> Certainly not square.
>
> Are you sure that you measured viewing area?
> The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing
> area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main
> graphics mode (64x480).
>
> 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display
> 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display
> 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display

I turned on the monitor, got it to display a full screen of
characters, and put a tape measure next to the screen, measuring
the distances (one horizontal, one vertical) between outside
edges of the character array.  It's possible my measurements were
a little bit off, but not so much I think as the difference
between 5:4 and 3:2.

>>> For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor
>>> at work.
>>> Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too
>>> narrow.  In this case 11% difference matters.
>>
>> My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases
>> height:width) is about right for one page.  We might want a small
>> strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to
>> 1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio
>> of 1.6).  But HD is 1.78 to 1;  that shape is just awkward for
>> the display of text.
>
> In case of FHD turned 90 Degrees I am less concerned about ratio.
> I just find 1080 pixel width insufficient.
> If somebody gives me 1200x2048 (W:H) display I will use it just fine
> despite almost the same ratio as 1080x1920.
> The use case is several landscape windows placed one above another.  Most
> of the time attention concentrated on one window, but occasionally goes
> to the others without need to resize or minimize anything.  I find it
> more convenient than arranging windows side-by-side or then using
> multiple monitors.

Interesting.  I am curious to see you in your work environment,
not that I think that will ever happen.