Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!bridge2!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: curses - problem... NO
Message-ID: <1989Dec11.193644.3539@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 11 Dec 89 19:36:44 GMT
References: <21708@adm.BRL.MIL> <8074@cs.yale.edu> <1899@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: dce@Sony.COM (David Elliott)
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp.
Lines: 37

In article <1899@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
>  You're right, but I think the original poster was saying "don't use
>more than 80x24" rather than "don't bother to check for less." That's
>open to interpretation, or course. I try to insure that anything I write
>will run in 80x24, although some applications might take advantage of a
>longer screen.

In projects I've worked on with curses, I've learned to assume 22x79,
not 24x80.

The "typical" size for a terminal is 24x80.

If the terminal is compatible with a VT52 or otherwise has problems
with the right margin, you're better off never hitting column 80, so
that takes it down to 24x79.

A number of people like to use a status line, so that drops it down to
23x79.

A smaller number of people use a second status line, either by using
something like BSD's 'window', or for displaying the current
directory.  That drops it to 22x79.

I've known enough people with only a 22x79 useable area on their
screens that I consider it useful to program with that in mind as a
minimum.

Remember, in a terminal environment, you can't just resize the window
if it's too small.  Someone who can't use your software is not
going to be too amenable to giving up something just so you can write
your code quicker.

-- 
David Elliott
dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
(408)944-4073
"It's bigger than a breadbox, and smaller than the planet Jupiter."