Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?

On 03/03/2025 13:33, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 03/03/2025 12:29, bart wrote:

On 03/03/2025 12:13, Michael S wrote:

On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:

[...]

Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square,

>
My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than
square.

>
Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old
computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height).
Certainly not square.
>

>
Are you sure that you measured viewing area?
The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing
area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main
graphics mode (64x480).
>
240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display
212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display
283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display

>
It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in 640x480 mode, they were square, so the aspect of the full-frame image, assuming no overscan, would be 4:3. The CRT physical aspect is harder to measure (some may be masked by the enclosure for example).
>
Domestic TV sizes in that era (40 years ago) were also 4:3, in the UK at least. And a lot of monitors would have been about the same.

 For home micros; Spectrums, BBCs, C64s etc, the TV was the monitor.

I'm saying that even monitors designed for computer use (so with RGB inputs, finer shadow masks and higher line rates, including those for mono) were around that same aspect: 4:3 or squarer, rather than wider.
Wider ones may well have existed, but in the period I'm talking about, from 1980 to sometime in the 90s, they were uncommon.