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 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: <87frk10w51.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <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 writes: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>> Richard Harnden 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.