Comment by perching_aix

It really wouldn't be much of a conversation. Historical conventions are a thing in general. Just think of the direction of electron flow.

> even though we have 16x9 4K displays now

Pretty much no normal person uses those at 100% scaling though, so unless you're thinking of the fellas who use a TV for a monitor, that doesn't actually help so much:

- 100% scaling: 6 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste

- 125% scaling: 4 panels of 80 columns fit, 64 px go to waste (8 cols)

- 150% scaling: 4 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste

- 175% scaling: 3 panels of 80 columns fit, 274 px go to waste (34 cols)

- 200% scaling: 3 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste

This sounds good until you need any additional side panels. Think line numbers, scrollbars, breakpoint indicators, or worse: minimaps, and a directory browser. A minimap is usually 20 cols/panel, a directory browser is usually 40 cols. Scrollbar and bp-indicator together 2 cols/panel. Line numbers, probably safe to say, no more than 6 cols/panel.

With 2 panels, this works out to an entire additional panel in overhead, so out of 3 panels only 2 remain usable. That's the fate of the 175% and 200% options. So what is the "appropriate" scaling to use?

Well PPI-wise, if you're rocking a 32" model, then 150%. If a 27" model, then 175%. And of course, given a 22"-23"-24" unit, then 200%. People of course get sold on these for the "additional screen real estate" though, so they'll instead sacrifice seeing the entire screen at once and will put on their glasses. Maybe you prefer to drop down by 25% for each of these.

All of this is to say, it's not all that unreasonable. I personally feel a bit more comfortable with a 100 col margin, but I do definitely appreciate when various files nicely keep to the 80 col mark, they're a lot nicer to work with side-by-side.