I don't think that's how space works.
That said: diagonal size with an aspect ratio, e.g. “13" 3:2”, is fine.
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.
If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.
These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.
One more thing about display sizes and aspect ratio:
Since display sizes are usually given by the length of the diagonal, those aspect ratios that are closer to a square (1:1) will have a bigger area for the same diagonal. With the same diagonal length, a 16:10 has a ~5% larger area than a 16:9, and a 4:3 has a ~12% larger area than the 16:9.
This is a nice tool for display size calculations: https://displaywars.com/
I've had 3 16:10 panels in the last 10 years and this was the case each time: 1920x1200 (vs 1920x1080), 2560x1600 (vs 2560x1440) and now a 3840x2400 (vs 3840x2160).
16:10 monitors were out of fashion for most of the last 10 years, but are making a comeback lately.. They were hard to find for a while but worth the effort imo.
Sure, that's true for the pixels (which might also be the more important part), but the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).
