/tech/ - Technology★

Clearly a thread by a /pol/tard with no clue about anything to do with actually writing code. As evidenced by the irrelevant (and wrong, neither of those three formulated relativity) OP image

>>820915

Well said. /tech/ is owned by /leftypol/, no /pol/ weenies allowed

>>820917

Fuck you, false flagging autist. What do you accomplish doing that?

>>820918

The downfall of the patriarchy

8 is the best indent size imo.

4 because 2 is for JS ((("people"))) and 8 is for autistic kernel mantainers.

[spoiler]8 > 2]/spoiler]

>>820923

>>820918

>>820917

https://youtu.be/2TbbvXK5QS8

2

It's obviously indented without wasting space.

>>820909 (OP)

If you can't tell something is out of alignment by even one space then there's something wrong with you.

Larger indents sizes mean less room for code leading to retarded font sizes.

It looks ridiculous.

There's literally no argument for any of those, it's pure personal preference.

Anything above 4 is shit though and you should get thicker glasses if you need it.

This isn't an issue if you use tabs. If you use spaces instead of tabs, you are the real problem.

>>820961

>he still uses tabs while every noteworthy project uses spaces

lmao tbh

>>820909 (OP)

Depends on the language.

For example, write a shell script with 8 spaces and you see how wrong it looks, 4 looks more organized, 2 fits just perfect.

>>820968

>free software board

>imposes nonfree software on others

>>820917

>if you don't believe in the Jewish conspiracy, you must be a commie

Are you like 12 or something?

I use 4 spaces mapped to the tab key. 2 spaces is fine, but I find that it's far more explicit at 4, and 3 is just weird, but I've thought about doing this.

>>820961

Tabs are a mistake. You wordwrap comments (hopefully) to a line length so you've already forced a tab size. So viewed in anything with any other tab size it will look like shit.

Since you're already going to force a size, use spaces. Then it's viewed correctly in everything and is edited correctly in everything.

>>820909 (OP)

Whatever the fuck my editor uses by default. I don't give a shit.

>>820909 (OP)

Indent with tabs and not spaces and it doesn't matter because you just set the default tab size to whatever you want in your editor and it doesn't fuck up everybody else when they download your code. Space intents are an antiquated standard from the days when "code review" meant literally printing off the code onto sheets of paper and sitting down and grading it with a pen. In that situation, and only that situation, consistent spaces were required. There is no reason to not exclusively use tab indent.

>>825565

>You wordwrap comments (hopefully) to a line length so you've already forced a tab size. So viewed in anything with any other tab size it will look like shit.

>manually wrapping comments

Nah fuck off. That's also something that's retarded and needs to die. See, modern text editors have this fancy, space age feature called word wrap built in from the start. Stop truncating your comments and just let them wrap naturally, then it doesn't look like shit no matter WHAT screen size you're using.

>>825575

Some of us the ones who actually write code would rather just write code than fight with formatting in a million different tools that are going to fuck that up in different ways.

I just use the default tab stop and don't change anything related in editor. With vi, that's a real tab stop of 8 spaces width. Might be different in other editor, but I don't care because I'm not going to change it.

>>825577

Exactly, which is why it's easier and less effort to just write what you need to write in your comment and not fuck around with formatting it to all be 80 characters per line.

>>820909 (OP)

>caring about (((shillstein))) and his wrong metaphysics

>(((NASA)))

>not glorious Tesla (not the Tesla motor whitewash, retard)

>>825586

Spoken like someone who has never sent a patch by email. You end up forced to define tabs as the default 8 spaces like Linus.

>>825605

I run GNU indent through my code.

>>820971

>noteworthy

>nonfree

You *DO* need glasses.

>>820909 (OP)

I'm surprised that I actually already have been bothered by this parameter in the past. For me 4 is the only option. 2 may be more "efficient" but is not enough for my eyes to create a clear visible structure. 8 on the other hand is tremendously ugly.

My theory would be that 8 is too far out of the focus area of the eye. Whereas 2 vs. 4 is a mere psychological decision.

>>820926

>8 is for autistic kernel mantainers

is it? why would that be preferable? seriously asking out of interest

>>820915

>Oops, Einstein just forgot to cite his sources!

>>825708

>missing the point

Retards have a tendency to assign all credit or blame to one figurehead.

>>825706

If you add in a requirement of max columns you can ensure people don't nest too much. This helps encourage a reduced complexity and breaking things into functions.

>>825831

sounds reasonable. thanks!

>>820915

>falling for the bait

Retard