Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't know if this was easy or quick for you (less than an hour, in any case), but you seem to prove the parent correct: "That code has lots of shortcomings. Compromised readability due to line length is not one of them." Maybe you're simply an amazing programmer, but to jump in and refactor a small bit of code deep inside something you've never seen before proves to me that the initial code was indeed readable.

In either case, both examples are literally geometrically square, which I think drives readability more than line width. When the long lines poke out and don't relate to other long lines, it's hard to read. If all the lines are long and share structure, it's just verbose, but reasonably easy to read. With that perspective, I'd say the parent's code isn't a great example of long-line code: it doesn't demonstrate a _need_ for 160 chars; I'll agree with you.




I started typing a longer response, but honestly I think the clearest answer here is just sarcasm:

Some of us have a higher standard for "readable" code than "can be refactored so that it doesn't suck". :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: