Re: [dev] Plain text editor that sucks less - an alternative to VIM?

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:49:23 +0200

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:02:20 +0530
Weldon Goree <> wrote:

> Depends on the language, I guess. I do a lot of stuff in Forth (robotics
> is a hobby of mine) and I'm not even sure what "syntax highlighting"
> would be in that case -- I guess parsing words could be one color and
> non-parsing words another? I like it in verilog, though. In LISP I'm
> kind of indifferent; it's much more important that an editor can balance
> sexps than anything else.

I can't agree more that the need for syntax hightlighting directly
depends on the language-design. For instance, it's very hard to develop
Java, C-Objective or C# without an IDE, as there are hundreds of
utility-functions, objects and what not you can't keep in your head all
the time.
C is a prime example for a language where this is not endemic, given
the language was designed to be simple and isn't stuffed with
unnecessary cruft, but leaves you the decision which library to use.

> One thing I do like in any language is having comments displayed in a
> distinct color. I find that very useful. Also string literals. I guess I
> prefer a "scanner highlighting" to "parser highlighting", if that's a
> meaningful distinction.

Yes, highlighting comments makes sense, as even the article suggests,
but this is not a central issue if you know how to encapsulate your


is more error-prone and hard to read than

 * (...)
 * (...)
 * (...)

once the comments get longer.



Received on Wed Jul 02 2014 - 13:49:23 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jul 02 2014 - 14:00:10 CEST