3 ms·

> I think it would be interesting to compare the results with a similar eye track of a program written with more emphasis on data flow It would also be interes

> I think it would be interesting to compare the results with a similar eye track of a program written with more emphasis on data flow It would also be interesting to compare with code with decent syntax highlighting. For some reason I don't quite understand, most syntax highlighting out there highlights the wrong thing: keywords. It needs to highlight the site-of-definition of functions, variables, etc. For example: http://david.rothlis.net/code_presentation/distracting_syntax_highlighting/ http://david.rothlis.net/code_presentation/distracting_synta...

kibwen 14y ago
It's pretty easy to understand why keywords are highlighted, even if it isn't justifiable. 1) Programmers are lazy, 2) regexes are the quickest way to implement basic syntax highlighting, and 3) if your keywords are reserved words (as most are), then you can get infallible highlighting with the expression /(^|\s):listofreservedwords:(/s|$)/.
- drothlis 14y ago
  Emacs, at least, already provides primitive parsing / heuristics that work reasonably well for most languages. See the example in the link I posted above: All I had to do was customise the colour and font-weight of various things already recognised by Emacs: function-name, variable-name, type, etc. Maybe what I don't understand is all the effort people put into making pretty themes for their editors --there are millions of these themes out there-- and almost all of them insist on highlighting (drawing attention to) the language's keywords of all things. The least important part of any program.
eholk 14y ago
Some of the initial analysis Mike has done shows that programmers spend the majority of their time looking at identifiers. I think this supports your point.
synesthesiam 14y ago
This is something I'm definitely interested in. I don't have any syntax highlighting in the current experiment to avoid controversy over the "right" way to highlight, and to put the focus on content of the code. For the future, though, this would be an excellent experimental manipulation to try. Thanks!

kibwen 14y ago

It's pretty easy to understand why keywords are highlighted, even if it isn't justifiable. 1) Programmers are lazy, 2) regexes are the quickest way to implement basic syntax highlighting, and 3) if your keywords are reserved words (as most are), then you can get infallible highlighting with the expression /(^|\s):listofreservedwords:(/s|$)/.

drothlis 14y ago
Emacs, at least, already provides primitive parsing / heuristics that work reasonably well for most languages. See the example in the link I posted above: All I had to do was customise the colour and font-weight of various things already recognised by Emacs: function-name, variable-name, type, etc. Maybe what I don't understand is all the effort people put into making pretty themes for their editors --there are millions of these themes out there-- and almost all of them insist on highlighting (drawing attention to) the language's keywords of all things. The least important part of any program.

eholk 14y ago

Some of the initial analysis Mike has done shows that programmers spend the majority of their time looking at identifiers. I think this supports your point.

synesthesiam 14y ago

This is something I'm definitely interested in. I don't have any syntax highlighting in the current experiment to avoid controversy over the "right" way to highlight, and to put the focus on content of the code. For the future, though, this would be an excellent experimental manipulation to try. Thanks!