<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@orlitzky.com" target="_blank">michael@orlitzky.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 10/29/2012 07:50 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:<br>
> There was a recent discussion on the python list regarding maximum line<br>
> length.<br>
> It occured to me that beautiful haskell programs tend to be plump (ie<br>
> have long lines) compared to other languages whose programs are 'skinnier'.<br>
> My thoughts on this are at<br>
> <a href="http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/layout-imperative-in-functional.html" target="_blank">http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/layout-imperative-in-functional.html</a>.<br>
><br>
> Are there more striking examples than the lexer from the standard prelude?<br>
> [Or any other thoughts/opinions :-) ]<br>
<br>
</div></div>In any language, a line longer than 80 characters usually (but not<br>
always) suggests that you might want to stop and rethink your design. In<br>
many cases a refactoring or two will greatly simplify the code and<br>
reduce your line length as a result.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I disagree. That might be true for imperative languages, where width is indicative of deep nesting and its associated problems. But it is not true for a functional language, where it is merely indicative of a wide "normal form". Yes, the normal form can sometimes be refactored, but to what end? You might easily end up refactoring out of the level of abstraction you actually want. Or the wide form might have useful properties, like the ability to sort the lines of source code alphanumerically (which would be lost if you switched to a stanza-based format)</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div>