The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Xah Lee, Apr 26, 2005.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines

    20050222

    Computing Folks of the industry:

    please spread the debunking of the truncating line business of the
    fucking unix-loving fuckheads, as outlines here:
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/truncate_line.html

    if this myth-debunking is known widely enough, there wouldn't be any
    more line truncating business.

    emacs community has always been a thinking community as opposed to the
    unix criminals. However by historical happenstance, the emacs of GNU's
    Not Unix is essentially a program for unixes, so unavoidable it has to
    deal with and inherit some of the ill shits of unix, if for nothing
    but to be practical.

    However, as of today, emacs don't really have reason to have
    arrow-down behavior to be dependent on the hard-coded line wraps. I
    want the next emacs version's down-arrow behavior to be fixed. (and
    optionally as another mode to move by EOL.)

    The reason for this change is easy. For those habituated with hard
    wrapped lines, this would cause no difference. However, for those who
    have lines that return at logical places, this would be an
    improvement. (This is the intuitive way, and all non-geek editors
    behave this way, even most editors or IDEs designed for programing.)

    The need in this change is significant. By the current behavior of
    down-arrow by EOL char, it discourages logical line breaking,
    encourages hard-coded line breaking, and engenders the huge and
    wide-spread problems as a consequence (as partially detailed in the
    url given above): Programs posted online are broken, the who-said-what
    quoting systems are a mess to process and comprehend, and needless
    complex programs that processes and re-process the hard-wrapped
    lines... And also it seeds the bad notions by creation of a generation
    of imperative languages based on hard-line wraps (e.g. many
    languages's line comment; and cannot be nested), and the misleading
    and harmful habituation in IT of sizing software by
    EOL-counting. (both of these are hindrances to functional programing.)

    Further, in programing there's large chapters and energy spent on
    what's called "coding style", which refers to the petty issue of when
    and how to press a return so the lines all jag in some uniform
    way. This ubiquitous "coding style" activity is helped by the
    hard-wrap habit of thinking, which created these EOL-centric language
    syntaxes in the first place.

    (
    When coding in a programing language, the programer should never have
    to enter returns for the sake of display-formatting. The language's
    syntax and the editor should be able to display the code well on the
    fly by a simple parsing. Some 90% of EOL in codes today are there
    manually entered by programer that does not serve any function other
    than hard-coded pretty-printing.
    (as oppose to the sometimes a intentional return to make a point in
    the code, either as logical break, or emphasizing a section.)

    And as a consequence of these EOL-centric languages is that attention
    are put on code by the lines, instead of functional or logical
    units. For example, comments tends to be based on lines of code, as
    opposed to on a functional unit or algorithm. Boolean clauses inside
    IF clause each span a line, as opposed to being together as a
    predicate unit.
    (which smother new developments of such predicate unit in language
    syntax or semantics)
    IF blocks almost always span multiple lines, as opposed to the idea of
    coherent unit of “if PREDICATE do BLOCKâ€.
    (and such EOL-centric code tends to engender practices such as
    calling and setting global variables here and there inside code
    blocks).
    Temporary variables occupy a line by themselves, as oppose to tucked
    inconspicuously inside its functional unit...etc and so on.
    (a example of a language that is not EOL-centric is Mathematica,
    which displays the code with sensible justification, all done
    automatically behind the scenes, just as a word processor is to
    writing.
    (and the language happens also to display typeset mathematics on the
    fly.)
    Similar mileu are in LISP languages, but they did not push this idea
    further.
    (That is to say, in LISP communities, they on occasion still do and
    talk about the petty issues of manual return-pressing, even their
    languages are potentially immune to the hard-wrap problems.
    )
    )
    )

    I hope the above is some elucidation on the hard-wrap and
    line-truncation business. Please spread the info.

    ---------
    This email is archived at
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/hard-wrap.html

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Apr 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xah Lee

    jacob navia Guest

    Xah Lee wrote:
    > The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines
    >
    > 20050222
    >
    > Computing Folks of the industry:
    >
    > please spread the debunking of the truncating line business of the
    > fucking unix-loving fuckheads, as outlines here:
    > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/truncate_line.html
    >


    What I find *really* funny is that document is formatted.... using
    at most 80 columns :)
     
    jacob navia, Apr 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Xah Lee" <> writes:
    > The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines
    >
    > 20050222
    >
    > Computing Folks of the industry:
    >
    > please spread the debunking of the truncating line business of the
    > fucking unix-loving fuckheads, as outlines here:

    [snip]

    Thank you for putting the abusive language near the top of your post,
    so we know right away to ignore anything else you might have to say.

    Note followups.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Apr 27, 2005
    #3
  4. Keith Thompson <> writes:

    > "Xah Lee" <> writes:
    >> The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines
    >>
    >> 20050222
    >>
    >> Computing Folks of the industry:
    >>
    >> please spread the debunking of the truncating line business of the
    >> fucking unix-loving fuckheads, as outlines here:

    > [snip]
    >
    > Thank you for putting the abusive language near the top of your post,
    > so we know right away to ignore anything else you might have to say.
    >
    > Note followups.


    You don't even have to read the top of the message;
    'From: "Xah Leeh"' is enough to flag the message as ignorable.

    --
    Raymond Wiker Mail:
    Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
    Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
    P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
    NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
     
    Raymond Wiker, Apr 27, 2005
    #4
  5. Re: Re: The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines

    Raymond Wiker <> wrote:

    > You don't even have to read the top of the message;
    > 'From: "Xah Leeh"' is enough to flag the message as ignorable.


    you can optimize by putting this in your spam filter.


    ----
    Garry Hodgson, Technical Consultant, AT&T Labs

    Your love, your anger, your kindness, your hate.
    All of it creates the future for you and your children.
    What kind of future are you creating today?
     
    Garry Hodgson, Apr 27, 2005
    #5
  6. jacob navia wrote:

    > Xah Lee wrote:
    >
    >> The Harm of hard-wrapping Lines


    > What I find *really* funny is that document is formatted.... using
    > at most 80 columns :)


    I find Xah Lee offensive and just plain stupid. What is this doing in
    comp.lang groups?

    Blargh.
     
    Forrest Black, Apr 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Forrest Black wrote:

    > I find Xah Lee offensive and just plain stupid. What is this doing in
    > comp.lang groups?


    Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    newsgroups?
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Apr 27, 2005
    #7
  8. Martin Ambuhl <> writes:

    >Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >newsgroups?



    Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).

    --
    Chris.
     
    Chris McDonald, Apr 27, 2005
    #8
  9. On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:38:24 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Chris
    McDonald <> wrote:

    >Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >
    >>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>newsgroups?

    >
    >
    >Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    >From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).


    by convention, groups not prefixed with a national identifier such as
    de, fr, etc are considered to be english language groups unless their
    charter states otherwise. As with any unmoderated group, there's
    nothing to enforce this except common sense.

    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Mark McIntyre, Apr 28, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Mark McIntyre <> wrote:
    >by convention, groups not prefixed with a national identifier such as
    >de, fr, etc are considered to be english language groups unless their
    >charter states otherwise. As with any unmoderated group, there's
    >nothing to enforce this except common sense.


    I use a completely different convention. My convention is this:

    If someone posts in a language other than English in a
    newsgroup that is not specifically chartered for English, then
    that person is restricting the number of people who are likely
    to have the time and knowledge to answer them. One might advise
    them of this, but one should otherwise leave them alone [unless
    one can answer.]

    The situation is no different than if you are in a bus/ train/
    airplane and nearby people start talking in another language.
    If they aren't obviously trying to include you, then
    they aren't talking to you. Which is fine, considering that
    most threads pretty quickly turn into one person talking to
    another person without a care as to whether anyone else is
    paying attention.
    --
    Oh, to be a Blobel!
     
    Walter Roberson, Apr 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Chris McDonald wrote:
    > Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>newsgroups?

    >
    >
    >
    > Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    > From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).
    >


    I think the standard for NGs is to be English, unless specified
    otherwise, just because they developed first and because their
    users speak English. German newsgroups, for instance, are part of
    the de.* hierarchy. I strongly suspect there are Chinese NGs, too.

    It's no restriction, just a convention. It's like not going into
    an English-speaking restaurant and talking Chinese to the
    waiter/waitress for ordering food.

    --
    No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
    consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
     
    Ulrich Hobelmann, Apr 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Ulrich Hobelmann <> writes:

    >I think the standard for NGs is to be English, unless specified
    >otherwise, just because they developed first and because their
    >users speak English. German newsgroups, for instance, are part of
    >the de.* hierarchy. I strongly suspect there are Chinese NGs, too.


    >It's no restriction, just a convention. It's like not going into
    >an English-speaking restaurant and talking Chinese to the
    >waiter/waitress for ordering food.


    We all certainly appreciate that there are conventions, but I am
    uncomfortable with suggestions that languages other than English don't
    belong in newgroups that have traditionally used English (outbursts are
    increasingly seen). One can argue that USENET is dying a slow death,
    and maybe hundreds on millions of Chinese won't even start using it.
    But given how closely guarded topics of discussion must be in this
    newsgroup to receive helpful responses, let's hope that someone will
    provide definitive answers in cn.comp.lang.c. too.

    --
    Chris.
     
    Chris McDonald, Apr 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Xah Lee

    Sunnan Guest

    Chris McDonald wrote:
    > Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    > From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).
    >


    ..i jimte mu'i lenu lo skamysnu pe lo bangu poi ke'a cu frica lei glico
    ku'o cu zasti
     
    Sunnan, Apr 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    Alan Balmer Guest

    On 27 Apr 2005 23:31:35 GMT, -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    Roberson) wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Mark McIntyre <> wrote:
    >>by convention, groups not prefixed with a national identifier such as
    >>de, fr, etc are considered to be english language groups unless their
    >>charter states otherwise. As with any unmoderated group, there's
    >>nothing to enforce this except common sense.

    >
    >I use a completely different convention. My convention is this:
    >
    > If someone posts in a language other than English in a
    > newsgroup that is not specifically chartered for English, then
    > that person is restricting the number of people who are likely
    > to have the time and knowledge to answer them.


    Also, they, and whoever chooses to answer, are withholding knowledge
    from group participants who cannot read the articles. This should be
    discouraged for the same reason that asking for a reply by private
    email is discouraged.

    >One might advise
    > them of this, but one should otherwise leave them alone [unless
    > one can answer.]
    >
    > The situation is no different than if you are in a bus/ train/
    > airplane and nearby people start talking in another language.


    It is different. Suppose you are at a round-table technical
    discussion, and a couple of the participants start using a language
    that no-one else understands, presumably on the topic of the
    roundtable. It would be considered rude, at the very least. That's a
    closer analogy, IMO.

    > If they aren't obviously trying to include you, then
    > they aren't talking to you. Which is fine, considering that
    > most threads pretty quickly turn into one person talking to
    > another person without a care as to whether anyone else is
    > paying attention.


    Not true, at least in this newsgroup. This is easily verified by
    noting the number of participants in even the longest threads.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Balmer Consulting
     
    Alan Balmer, Apr 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Chris McDonald wrote:
    > Ulrich Hobelmann <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>I think the standard for NGs is to be English, unless specified
    >>otherwise, just because they developed first and because their
    >>users speak English. German newsgroups, for instance, are part of
    >>the de.* hierarchy. I strongly suspect there are Chinese NGs, too.

    >
    >
    >>It's no restriction, just a convention. It's like not going into
    >>an English-speaking restaurant and talking Chinese to the
    >>waiter/waitress for ordering food.

    >
    >
    > We all certainly appreciate that there are conventions, but I am
    > uncomfortable with suggestions that languages other than English don't
    > belong in newgroups that have traditionally used English (outbursts are
    > increasingly seen). One can argue that USENET is dying a slow death,
    > and maybe hundreds on millions of Chinese won't even start using it.
    > But given how closely guarded topics of discussion must be in this
    > newsgroup to receive helpful responses, let's hope that someone will
    > provide definitive answers in cn.comp.lang.c. too.
    >


    Aber ich finde es ziemlich unhöflich, in ein englisches Forum
    einfach deutschen Kram zu posten, nur weil mir gerade danach ist.

    Isn't that kind of rude?

    Seriously, they are free to post their language in their
    newsgroups. If I wanted to write German stuff or other languages,
    I'd go look for groups in that language.

    I'm sure that lots of Chinese have their means of communication on
    the internet. I'm thankful that they respect that these
    newsgroups are English newsgroups, just as I respect that.

    I don't post English stuff in Chinese groups either, cause they
    might not understand it.

    --
    No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's
    consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
     
    Ulrich Hobelmann, Apr 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Chris McDonald wrote:
    > Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>newsgroups?

    >
    >
    >
    > Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    > From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).
    >


    What are you on about? "English usage newsgroups" are about English
    usage. The point, which you don't seem to understand, is that he posts
    just as inappropriately to natural language newsgroups as he does to
    computer language newsgroups.
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Apr 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Chris McDonald wrote:
    > Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>newsgroups?

    >
    >
    >
    > Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    > From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).
    >


    It seems all the other responses are from people who share your
    inability to read. Nowhere do I suggest that any of the comp.lang.*
    newsgroups are restricted to English. Just as he posts inappropriately
    to comp.lang.* newsgroups, he post inappropriately to -- follow the
    bouncing ball -- English usage newsgroups, such as alt.usage.english and
    alt.english.usage. Damned right that English usage newsgroups are about
    English usage. Jeez.
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Apr 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Martin Ambuhl <> writes:

    >Chris McDonald wrote:
    >> Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >>
    >>>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>>newsgroups?

    >>
    >>
    >> Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    >> From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).
    >>


    >It seems all the other responses are from people who share your
    >inability to read. Nowhere do I suggest that any of the comp.lang.*
    >newsgroups are restricted to English. Just as he posts inappropriately
    >to comp.lang.* newsgroups, he post inappropriately to -- follow the
    >bouncing ball -- English usage newsgroups, such as alt.usage.english and
    >alt.english.usage. Damned right that English usage newsgroups are about
    >English usage. Jeez.



    Or you could get off your high horse, and explain your need to state
    "(in Chinese characters)". Yes, inappropriate, we've all agreed on that.
    Get over him; we have,

    --
    Chris.
     
    Chris McDonald, Apr 28, 2005
    #18
  19. On 27 Apr 2005 23:31:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
    -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Mark McIntyre <> wrote:
    >>by convention, groups not prefixed with a national identifier such as
    >>de, fr, etc are considered to be english language groups unless their
    >>charter states otherwise. As with any unmoderated group, there's
    >>nothing to enforce this except common sense.

    >
    >I use a completely different convention.


    You're obviously free to use any convention you like, but that doesn't
    mean its the widely applied 'standard' convention. Its similar to
    using nonstandard quote marks, or not setting word wrap, or posting in
    mime to text-only groups.

    > The situation is no different than if you are in a bus/ train/
    > airplane and nearby people start talking in another language.


    No, its completely different. To continue your analogy, its analogous
    to someone entering a bus/train/aeroplane in the UK, and speaking
    Polish to the bus driver.

    > If they aren't obviously trying to include you, then
    > they aren't talking to you.


    But its not a conversation, its a question.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
     
    Mark McIntyre, Apr 28, 2005
    #19
  20. On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:22:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Martin Ambuhl
    <> wrote:

    >Chris McDonald wrote:
    >> Martin Ambuhl <> writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Why does he post Chinese poetry (in Chinese characters) to English usage
    >>>newsgroups?

    >>
    >> Why do you believe that these newsgroups are restricted to English?
    >> From where comes the restriction? (and it obviously doesn't work).

    >
    >It seems all the other responses are from people who share your
    >inability to read.


    Well, I was answering Chris' question, not commenting on what you
    said, but its a fair point.

    And posting chinese poetry in chinese to a newsgroup specialising in
    usage of english is incredibly dumb, incredibly rude, or both.

    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
     
    Mark McIntyre, Apr 28, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alex Shefer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,489
    Keith
    Jan 26, 2005
  2. Jack
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,692
  3. TheKeith
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    383
    TheKeith
    Oct 17, 2003
  4. Jorge Godoy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    374
    Jorge Godoy
    Mar 23, 2006
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    274
Loading...

Share This Page