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

From: Ryan O’Hara <rninty_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:42:19 -0700

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Lee F. <REMOVED_UPON_REQUEST_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Charlie Kester <corky1951_AT_comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed 02 Jul 2014 at 04:49:23 PDT FRIGN wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, highlighting comments makes sense, as even the article suggests,
>>> but this is not a central issue if you know how to encapsulate your
>>> comments:
>>>
>>> /*
>>> (...)
>>> (...)
>>> (...)
>>> */
>>>
>>> is more error-prone and hard to read than
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * (...)
>>> * (...)
>>> * (...)
>>> */
>>>
>>> once the comments get longer.
>>
>>
>> Agreed. But I'm often reading someone else's code and they're not
>> always so considerate.
>>
>>
>
> Why would the former be more error-prone? Or even harder to read?...In
> my opinion they both have equal readability.
>
> The only issue I have with syntax highlighting is that many people
> rely on it to know if what they're typing is correct syntax (which
> means people have no idea what they're doing- in a sense training
> wheels), and to visually scan source (why scroll through the entire
> source looking for function f() when you can just run ctags or a
> similar tool?). As people have pointed out too, compilers will usually
> tell where you've made a mistake in syntax.
>

Quick, tell me whether /^http:(\/\/(?:[^/]+\/)+[/]final)$/ parses in Ruby.
How about in JavaScript?

The answer is obvious if you know your language and are able to do a
quick scan through the literal, but syntax highlighting removes the
effort entirely.
Received on Wed Jul 02 2014 - 16:42:19 CEST