Re: Asking if elements in struct arre zero

From: Keith Thompson (kst_at_cts.com)
Date: 11/08/03 

Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:51:00 GMT

Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
> >> ...the *fact* of the matter is that formatted text is *easier* to
> >> read. This--hopefully--is not in dispute.
> >
> > I have no problem reading fixed-width text.
>
> Once again, PLEASE READ THE WORDS. (In fact, one has to wonder if
> formatted text wouldn't have helped make the point! :-)
>
> Formatted, proportionally-spaced fonts are *E*A*S*I*E*R to read.
> Repeat: eas***>>>IER<<<***
>
> Not "easy". EASIER.

Yes, yes, I understand.

I read the words. My response was not intended to directly refute
what you wrote; I was commenting further on it. To be clear, I don't
disagree with your assertion that variable-width text text (as we see
in books, magazines, most web sites, etc.) is typically easier to read
than fixed-width text. What I dispute is the relevance of that fact
to Usenet.

> > For much of what I read, including C source code, formatted text
> > would be more difficult to read.
>
> What, besides source code, would be easier to read in monospace?
> Can you name any real book set in monospace? Do you wonder why not?
> How about K&R? If monospace is so great, why didn't they use it in
> their book? After all, it's *about* C source. If ANY book deserved
> to be set in mono, seems K&R would be a good choice.
>
> Yet, it wasn't.

Agreed. When they published K&R, it was well worth it to go to the
effort of formatting it in a variable-width font, as is done for most
books. It might have been easier and cheaper to use a plain
typewriter font; I'm glad they went to the extra effort to make it
more readable.

When I post to Usenet, it's not worth my time to do that kind of
formatting. If HTML postings were generally supported, I suppose I
could go to the effort of specifying that I want this paragraph to be
in a variable-width font, and use <pre>...</pre> for code samples, and
actual *boldface* and _underlining_ where it's appropriate, and so on.
Quite frankly, it's not worth the effort. The content of what I write
is what's important (or unimportant, as the case may be). If you want
to use a newsreader that lets you read it in your favorite font, feel
free; I'm not interested in adding extraneous formatting information.

> > A variable-width font might be easier to read for running
> > English text like this,...
>
> There really is no "might be" about it.

Ok, whatever.

> > ...but the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the benefits.
>
> What drawbacks? Seriously. Given the ability to drop into mono
> anytime you want/need to, what drawbacks are there that would
> outweigh the obvious benefits (benefits enjoyed by just about
> every single technical manual, book or magazine you've ever read).

Just about every single technical manual, book, or magazine I've ever
read was produced by professionals. Just about every Usenet posting
I've ever read was not. Look at how much trouble we have with posters
not following the simple plain text standards we have now. I don't
want to give the trolls the ability to shout at me in 36-point
blinking magenta wingdings.

Usenet works just fine as it is.

If it does change from a plain-text forum to one where fancy
formatting is allowed or encouraged, I suppose I'll deal with it, but
I see no sign of that actually happening. (I'm not sure that Usenet
would survive the transition, though of course it's survived a lot of
things before.)

[...]
> Well, that's probably true, but it's not my point here. MY POINT
> is getting you (or trying to, anyway) to examine exactly why you
> are clinging to an ancient standard rather than embracing a new
> and potentially useful one.

Two reasons: the ancient standard works, and the alleged new standard
doesn't seem to exist. 

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

Relevant Pages