[Jedd]

> A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time.

A 16:10 screen is also wider than it is tall.

I'm not sure if I'm being trolled.

Number of usefully displayable lines is not defined by the x:y ratio.

Further, any half-way decent 16:9 monitor can, in a matter of moments, become a 9:16 monitor.

EDIT: I am aware we're talking about a laptop display, so orientation isn't flippable - but OTOH if you're trying to develop code on a 13" monitor at 1200 pixels high - your problem is not a ratio one.

[LoveMortuus]

16:10 is less wider, and thus gives you more vertical real estate.

If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.

[sbarre]

That's not how 16:10 monitors work. Every one that I've seen has the same pixel width as a 16:9 screen but more vertical pixels. 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440 for example, or 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080.

These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.