>>1 It's very slow, but we can have insightful debates here, too. Like, for example, how tabs are better than spaces, opening braces go on the same line or why Seeples is shit.
>>5 That sounds like proggit beating a dead horse made into a wiki. No thank you.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-13 5:28
>>5 Tabs aren't better than spaces, though. For one thing, spaces are more accurate. Secondly, it is all the same in the end (assuming the use of tabs didn't cause inaccuracy). So while neither tabs or spaces are better in what counts, you would have to choose spaces if forced to choose one as better than the other as accuracy is more important than a *slightly* lower file size.
>>8 My post was meant to show sarcasm towards a lot of c2's debates (which actually and unironically include 'spaces-vs-tabs'). Also, I'm used to tabs being 8 spaces wide, so most spaces code looks outright horrible to me (1, 2, or 4 spaces make up 95% of spaces code out there). And by this, I trolled myself
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-13 13:57
8 spaces is just plain wasteful. On modern computers, 4-space tabs are the ideal.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-13 14:07
>>12 Modern computers are 64bit and can afford the 4 extra space.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-13 14:18
>>13 Word size has nothing to do with indentation. It's more about display area on the screen. 4 spaces are acceptable on modern computers with 80+ column displays, but on the early microcomputers with only like 20 columns, anything more than 1 space per indent level would be too much.
Name:
Anonymous2016-10-13 14:57
>>14 VT100 had 132 column mode and that was late 70s.