3 ms·

I don’t buy the thing about syntax highlighting. Even if I did think turning it off made me write better code — I do not — I still have to work with code that I

I don’t buy the thing about syntax highlighting. Even if I did think turning it off made me write better code — I do not — I still have to work with code that I have no control over. I agree about tabs and proportional fonts, but I think those are lost causes.

bravura 5y ago
I studied with Russ Cox. We did competitive programming together—and, earlier, against each other. I asked Russ why he didn’t use syntax highlighting and he was like: “Do you color code all your English by part of speech?” That stuck with me.
- jdougan 5y ago
  Yes, when I have the option and I'm proofing text. Less useful for writing, very useful for bulk reading.
- ilovecaching 5y ago
  What's he like in person? It seems like he's a considered person and definitely an acolyte of Rob from the outside.
- whoopdedo 5y ago
  Maybe we should. We already have Grammarly for linting of prose. Throw in syntax highlighting, auto-complete. If you want to get really creative find a way to identify the relevant proper noun when you hover the mouse over a pronoun.
- layer8 5y ago
  > Do you color code all your English by part of speech? I would if its function was to express strict logic that will be interpreted by a merciless computer.
- servytor 5y ago
  If I was paid to read massive amounts of repetitive English with only 25 keywords besides nouns you are darn right I would setup syntax highlighting.
ratrocket 5y ago
I don't really "buy" the reasoning[1] behind "no syntax highlighting" either, BUT I turned off syntax highlighting (in vim/neovim in my case) about 5 years ago (that was ~15 years into programming full time) and haven't looked back. I just don't miss it at all. At first I wanted to see what it was like to not have syntax highlighting because I realized I had never questioned the need for it. I found out I really liked not having it! I can't put my finger on why exactly, and this is the first time I think I've ever written a single word on the subject (ie, I'm not trying to convince anyone else to try it). But I also use "light mode" (white background, black text) in my terminal, editor, etc, so... take all this however you will :) (In reference to the topic at hand, I've tried seriously using acme, and although its "elegance" is attractive, I wasn't able to make it stick. I'll still open it or sam up every once in a while, and vis (https://git.sr.ht/~martanne/vis https://git.sr.ht/~martanne/vis) is an editor I always have in the back of my mind to try to use more.) [1]: The reasons against syntax highlighting in the article seem to be 1. it hides ugly code, 2. it's possible to waste a lot of time on configuring your colorscheme, 3. (not in the article, but) the old "do you syntax highlight prose? I didn't think so". I don't find 1 or 3 to be convincing, and wasting time on a colorscheme... whether it's a "waste" or not depends on your own preferences and circumstances.

bravura 5y ago

I studied with Russ Cox. We did competitive programming together—and, earlier, against each other. I asked Russ why he didn’t use syntax highlighting and he was like: “Do you color code all your English by part of speech?” That stuck with me.

jdougan 5y ago
Yes, when I have the option and I'm proofing text. Less useful for writing, very useful for bulk reading.
ilovecaching 5y ago
What's he like in person? It seems like he's a considered person and definitely an acolyte of Rob from the outside.
whoopdedo 5y ago
Maybe we should. We already have Grammarly for linting of prose. Throw in syntax highlighting, auto-complete. If you want to get really creative find a way to identify the relevant proper noun when you hover the mouse over a pronoun.
layer8 5y ago
> Do you color code all your English by part of speech? I would if its function was to express strict logic that will be interpreted by a merciless computer.
servytor 5y ago
If I was paid to read massive amounts of repetitive English with only 25 keywords besides nouns you are darn right I would setup syntax highlighting.

ratrocket 5y ago

I don't really "buy" the reasoning[1] behind "no syntax highlighting" either, BUT I turned off syntax highlighting (in vim/neovim in my case) about 5 years ago (that was ~15 years into programming full time) and haven't looked back. I just don't miss it at all. At first I wanted to see what it was like to not have syntax highlighting because I realized I had never questioned the need for it. I found out I really liked not having it! I can't put my finger on why exactly, and this is the first time I think I've ever written a single word on the subject (ie, I'm not trying to convince anyone else to try it). But I also use "light mode" (white background, black text) in my terminal, editor, etc, so... take all this however you will :) (In reference to the topic at hand, I've tried seriously using acme, and although its "elegance" is attractive, I wasn't able to make it stick. I'll still open it or sam up every once in a while, and vis (https://git.sr.ht/~martanne/vis https://git.sr.ht/~martanne/vis) is an editor I always have in the back of my mind to try to use more.) [1]: The reasons against syntax highlighting in the article seem to be 1. it hides ugly code, 2. it's possible to waste a lot of time on configuring your colorscheme, 3. (not in the article, but) the old "do you syntax highlight prose? I didn't think so". I don't find 1 or 3 to be convincing, and wasting time on a colorscheme... whether it's a "waste" or not depends on your own preferences and circumstances.