Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Can we please get useful source code formatting?

Post

Can we please get useful source code formatting?

+15
−1

My patience is running thin with code formatting on Codidact. I've made this feature request before on Software Development only (here) but no reply.

We currently have 5 communities which definitely need to frequently use the code formatting feature: Code Golf, Electrical Engineering, Linux Systems, Power User and Software Development. It may also be a useful feature on other sites.

Currently codidact supports code formatting with size 80 characters wide, 13 lines long. I'm viewing Codidact with 2560x1440 resolution in the year 2022... how is this restriction of 80x13 at all sensible?

The vertical limit of 13 lines is particularly annoying. Increasing the width wouldn't hurt either - as a comparison, Stack Overflow seems to allow 90 characters long lines instead of 80, maybe they use a different font.

Notably, I'm not expecting to view or write code on a phone - I couldn't care less about how it looks on phones.

Can we please do better than this?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

submitted PR but needs review (4 comments)
"Formatting" (1 comment)
submitted PR but needs review
Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 2 years ago

Perfect is the enemy of good. I don't know how to make it wider, but I submitted a PR to make the section taller.

Lundin‭ wrote over 2 years ago

Monica Cellio‭ Thank you. The vertical length is the critical issue, more horizontal width is just a nice to have thing. (There's a taboo among programmers to never write source lines longer than 80 characters, but that doesn't necessarily include comments.)

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 2 years ago

I didn't know we limited width (and can't find where we do but I am not fluent in CSS). I thought it was just that we wouldn't overflow the space allocated to the post, which is proportional I thought.

sau226‭ wrote over 2 years ago · edited over 2 years ago

We currently have 3 things that need to occur before this goes live:

** A dev needs to release the design system NPM package. The code is already sitting in the repo, but this step has not been taken yet

** A PR which bumps the design system NPM package (already created) will need to be merged (we declared a code freeze for a server migration initiative, so it may take a while to be merged)

** A dev then needs to manually deploy the code to production. It can take some time before a deployment occurs, even after a PR merge.

Accordingly, I've marked this request as status-planned, as we are just waiting on a dev and the migration process.