> In the 20th century, there were two spaces after an end of sentence period. (I still do that.)
Only if you used a typewriter. I was using (La)TeX in the twentieth (1990s), and it defaulted to a rough equivalent of 1.5 spaces (see \spacefactor).
Two ('full') space characters were added because of (tele)typewriters and their fixed width fonts, and this was generally not used in 'properly' published works with proportional typefaces; see CMoS:
Good to know! I am reminded of using *roff in the 1980s. Punctuation such as periods at the end of lines marked end of sentences, and nroff would insert two spaces in that case.
In HN, you can force two spaces between
sentences. But only in code blocks.
Because I learned to type on a typewriter, I always ended every sentence with a period and two spaces. But LaTeX was kind enough to not care whether I put one or two spaces, and gave me the right proportional spacing regardless.
Thanks for sharing. I'm a double spacer, but have to agree it does look to wide most of the time, while single-spacing looks too narrow. 1.5 sounds like a greatGoldilocks spacing. I only wish it were easier to use.
> Two ('full') space characters were added because of (tele)typewriters and their fixed width fonts
I could never agree with this, because monospace fonts are already adding extra space with the dot character, which is much narrower in proportional fonts. That fact alone makes the visual gap already similarly wide as it would be in typeset proportional text. Adding a second space makes it much too wide visually (almost three positions wide). It looks like badly typeset justified text.
(I understand why people are doing it, I just don’t agree on aesthetic grounds.)
I eventually gave up on this, but I always favored it because a period with two spaces after it very clearly designated the end of a sentence, as opposed to something like an abbreviation. It made parsing English just a little bit easier.
These are the moments that I need to have a confrontation about not bringing up unimportant things. The person who wrote the comment intended to communicate things about the code. The person who brought up the punctuation could change if if they really wanted to, if it was actually productive work. It's about "catching" someone else and having a reason to nip them on the ear. Review like that is what belongs in the garbage.
People whose ideas get heavily criticized for "being written by AI" (with most readers missing the point) have less influence and perhaps that influence matters enough to them to adapt, i.e. to "let others change them"
I agree. Reminds me of a few years back, when I got a Red Hat baseball cap which is (obviously) red. I had people telling me "oh no you can't wear that, MAGA hats ruined that". To which I say, balderdash and poppycock. I refuse to let others' mistaken assumptions dictate my behavior. If someone sees me wearing a RHEL hat and hates me because they assume I'm a Trump supporter, that's their problem, not mine.
I'd hate to lose my em- and en-dashes, but the original post seems to misuse en-dashes where hyphens belong (it could just be a font issue, but no matter).