Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vqbrba$2u3o1$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:53:45 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: <vqbrba$2u3o1$1@dont-email.me> References: <vpkmq0$21php$1@dont-email.me> <20250304175602.c9fe683d678d3a2ed101a4ac@g{oogle}mail.com> <vq75k8$1t6ut$2@dont-email.me> <vq785i$1u7v7$1@dont-email.me> <20250304101022.154@kylheku.com> <vq7shq$226p3$1@dont-email.me> <vq7u5u$21gol$2@dont-email.me> <20250305152224.ea400cb92445c78f6a4ba523@g{oogle}mail.com> <vq9kf0$2efj9$1@dont-email.me> <vq9mkb$2erto$1@dont-email.me> <20250305183051.3cca469a0fd757595152b261@g{oogle}mail.com> <vq9uqh$2g9q3$1@dont-email.me> <vqahmh$2jr7s$1@dont-email.me> <vqano3$2l1ar$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 10:53:47 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d08d3605953c1a578711c416fca63bf9"; logging-data="3084033"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18D/dZWi2oOmPfBlw67JFyd" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:3YR+PWIKi6y3PhAhgI3V/hpu6nk= X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 In-Reply-To: <vqano3$2l1ar$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3951 On 06.03.2025 00:46, bart wrote: > On 05/03/2025 22:02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 16:40:51 +0000, bart wrote: >> >>> People are forgetting that in the days of 80-character hardware, >>> identifiers were often limited to 6 characters or even fewer. >> >> COBOL allowed for 30 from the beginning, as I recall. And PL/I allowed >> 31. > > So: > > ADD AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB > GIVING CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC. > > ? A tight fit for an 80-column card I think. > > I think linker symbols were more limited; on DEC typically 6 characters > for example. Yes, I recall such limits. - Given how C++'s name-mangled identifiers are passed this seems different nowadays; shorter identifiers getting longer for the linker. > > I suspect the 30 characters were as a much of an arbitrary > implementation limit as my 255; you wouldn't supposed to get anywhere > near it. Most likely. - Also the habits seem to have been different back these days; using shorter names and not "stories" for identifying IT-items. > >> Whatever it was you meant by “80-character hardware” (see discussion >> elsewhere) ... > > Punched cards, teletypes and VDUs tended to use 72/80 columns. As already mentioned elsethread there have been also other sizes. The perceived supremacy of 80 columns cards were probably due to IBM's predominance on the IT sector, at least in the contexts I worked in or had insights in. > The first > text display I owned used 64. I think home or small-business printers > (not lineprinters) were based around 80 columns too (10cpi over 8 inches). I programmed on an Olivetti P6060 around 1980; a system with a BASIC compiler. It had a single-line display of 32 characters length, the output was on thermo-paper and it could plot and print characters in an 80 columns format. I think also the line length of that BASIC was restricted to 80 characters. As it was I seem to recall on Commodore systems (PET, CBM). A Sharp BASIC pocket calculator from these days had also a 80 characters restriction for BASIC programs, its optional thermo-printer supported 24 characters width (but obviously wasn't designed for printing other things than numbers); for a disassembler that I wrote with compact mnemonics it was sufficient, though. Janis