COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 FULL
COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 CODE
COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 SERIES

COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 CODE

To answer more precisely and more thoroughly to the question, 80 characters is the current 'universally accepted' limit to code width inside editors because 80x24 and 80x25 formats were the most common screen modes in early I/O terminals and personal computers ( VT52 - thanks to Sandman4). I'd say that's also because old terminals were (mostly) 80x24 characters in size: Back in the days of 80x24 terminals.

COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 FULL

With 80 character wide code, you only need a 240 character wide screen (1920 pixels at 8 pixels per character) to see a full three-way-merge (common ancestor, local branch and remote branch) comfortably on one screen. Where I work has a 132 character limit, which corresponds to the width of typical wide line printers of yore, a 12pt landscape A4 printout and the typical line width remaining in an editor window of Eclipse (maximised on a 1920x1200 screen) after Package Explorer and Outline views are taken into account.Д®ven so, I still prefer 80 character wide code as it it makes it easier to compare three revisions of a file side-by-side without either scrolling sideways (always bad) or wrapping lines (which destroys code formatting). Incidentally, not everywhere specifies an 80 character line width in their coding standards. larger round holes) and line length, while maintaining the same card size.

COBOL PARA TEXTPAD 8 SERIES

8 ВЅ' x 11'? and the History of ISO216 A series paper standard).ДЄdd a typical typewriter pitch of 10-12 characters per inch and that would lead to documents with widths of between 72 and 90 characters, depending on the size of the margins.ДЄs such, 80 characters per line would have represented a good compromise between hole pitch (small rectangular vs. Most of the historical typewriters I've seen had a platen width of around 9 inches, which corresponds with the standardisation of paper sizes to around 8'-8.5' wide (see Why is the standard paper size in the U.S. Now the question is, why did IBM chose 80 column cards in 1928, when Herman Hollerith had previously used 24 and 45 column cards?ДЄlthough I can't find a definitive answer, I suspect that the choice was based on the typical number of characters per line of typewriters of the time.

As of November 2011 some character interface defaults, such as the command prompt window's width in Microsoft Windows, remain set at 80 columns and some file formats, such as FITS, still use 80-character card images.

A legacy of the 80 column punched card format is that a display of 80 characters per row was a common choice in the design of character-based terminals.

As oded mentioned, this common coding standard is a result of the IBM's 1928 80 column punched card format, since many coding standards date back to a time when programs were written on punch cards, one card/line at a time, and even the transition to wider screens didn't alter the fact that code gets harder to read the wider it becomes.ДЇrom the wikipedia page on punched cards: Cultural Impact

Cobol para textpad 8