[throwaway894345]

> This is a false dichotomy - there's a third option, which is not squinting (because, presumably, you're doing so because you decreased your font size), and being able to see more on the screen at the same time.

It's not a false dichotomy. Visual structure (via whitespace) comes at the expense of strict information density (assuming a fixed font size). If this is not true, then we would never have any (syntactically insignificant) whitespace.

> This is not something you can "disagree" on - divorcing information from context always leads to more cognitive burden.

Agreed, but this supports my point. It's a lot easier to scroll and scan visual structure than it is to reparse dense code. Density divorces us from context a lot more than physical distance on a screen.

[throw10920]

> Density divorces us from context a lot more than physical distance on a screen.

You mean "unreadable code divorces us from context". "Density" doesn't have anything to do with it until you get to the point where your code is so dense as to become unreadable.

Moreover, "physical distance on a screen" is a strawman. The options aren't density and distance, they're density and not being able to see the code on the screen at all - between which, density is objectively better.

Seeing context is always better than not seeing context, assuming equal readability. Go's verbosity is both less readable and less dense than that of other, better-designed languages.

[throwaway894345]

> You mean "unreadable code divorces us from context". "Density" doesn't have anything to do with it until you get to the point where your code is so dense as to become unreadable.

As density increases, the difficulty of parsing also increases. At a certain, relatively early point, that difficulty rapidly exceeds the costs of scroll-and-scanning.

> Moreover, "physical distance on a screen" is a strawman. The options aren't density and distance, they're density and not being able to see the code on the screen at all - between which, density is objectively better.

Well, we know density is not "objectively better" because scrolling exists (granted, if you have a hard requirement on a code editor that doesn't allow for scrolling, then you should definitely stick with the densest language you can find), and a little scroll-and-scanning is better than parsing dense code.

[throw10920]

> At a certain, relatively early point, that difficulty rapidly exceeds the costs of scroll-and-scanning.

"Relatively early" is an unquantifiable statement, but regardless, that point is very far away from Go's design & generally accepted style, so this statement isn't really relevant to the conversation.

Regardless, scrolling exists by necessity, because some things simply can't fit on a single screen. It's still clearly always better to not scroll than scroll, assuming you aren't packing things in super tightly - I shouldn't have to provide evidence for this, but the fact that people don't just randomly clip text so they can add scrollboxes everywhere should be sufficient.

This is all a distraction from my last statement in my previous comment:

> Seeing context is always better than not seeing context, assuming equal readability. Go's verbosity is both less readable and less dense than that of other, better-designed languages.

[lanstin]

A long time ago I would shrink my code (C at the time) with a very small font and then just look at the shape of the important files. It was illuminating. The C and hence to some extent Go philosophy is that well written code has a narrative structure. Each file tells a coherent story about one character of the system.