Dear Tim:
Your reasoning is perfect for natural languages. For
computer languages, I do think there is a purpose for
certain highlighting of keywords and their associated
punctuations, particularly when the correct language
syntax frequently demands nested pairs of delimiters whose
scopes may be more than a few lines, and where structural
indentations may not be practical. Examples would be html,
Mathematica and TeX/LaTeX. Thus, the reason for
highlighting an IF-THEN-ELSE (as just one example) is not
because readers can't recognize those keywords, but
because readers may find it difficult to identify the
extents indicated by the hyphens in IF-THEN-ELSE. Such
highlighting benefits both the authors and the readers and
has its role for better syntactic communication.
One should not compare or confuse the highlighting of,
say, prepositions in natural languages with scope defining
highlighting in programming languages.
That said, it is not good programming practice to have
long scopes between paired delimiters, or for that matter,
deeply nested pairs of delimiters.
I agree that those who choose color highlighting should
choose colors carefully. I would prefer background
coloring only and not text coloring, to avoid the precise
problems you illustrated. Text emphasis should be shown
using different typefaces, and in rare situations, a solid
color like red.
William
On Mon, 19 May 2014 03:07:57 -0500
[email protected] wrote:
I had a debate about syntax highlighting of languages,
an idea that
dates back to Ada, as near as I can determine. In Ada
publications
it was traditional to highlight, by bold characters, all
of the
keywords in the language. This notion continues today.
Highlighting, and in particular bolding, is intended to
draw attention
to things of interest. In normal prose one highlights
portions of text
that are under discussion, items of controversy, or
famous quotes. The
technique is a primary tool of communication.
In computer languages, of which I have professionally
coded in over 60,
it is usually used in the Ada tradition of highlighting
syntax.
Several objections can be raised.
First, suppose we applied this to English. We could make
the editor
bold the 19 basic prepositions (at, after, by, down,
for, from, in,
of, on, over, past, round, since, through, till, to,
under, up, with).
While syntactically correct it is, to say the least,
distracting.
This draws attention to these "keywords" in the sentence
but, as a
native speaker of English, adds nothing worthwhile. In
computer
languages this has the same effect. It is not at all
useful to bold
keywords like IF, THEN, or ELSE. Any native speaker of
the language
can see these at a glance. Bringing such "background"
items to the
"foreground" of attention highlights the static,
inverting the usual
use of the technique in communication.
Even worse, some languages don't have "keywords" in the
usual sense.
In Lisp it is entirely possible to use the symbol "if"
in any number
of contexts, only one of which invokes its meaning as a
conditional
statement. It is a complete waste of cycles to
dynamically re-parse
text that a native speaker can read.
Second, and worse, such highlighting undermines the most
important
aspect of the technique, namely to draw the reader's
attention to
something noteworthy. Bolding and other forms of
highlighting are
textual means of emphasis in communication. Regular,
repeated, and
non-communicative use removes this from the toolbox of
the author.
Third, and on a personal aside, one often encounters
color-coded
program text in these highlighting schemes. As someone
who is
partially color blind it is often impossible to see some
characters at
all. It is usually possible to change these settings
online but in
printed text whole passages are unreadable. Thus
void foo(char *x) {
if (x > b) then c else d;
}
in certain colors becomes
foo( x)
(x b) c d
which, I must say, certainly de-emphasizes the language
syntax though
losing a bit in semantics. :-)
So consider the difference between "coding for yourself"
where your
editor highlights code in pretty rainbow colors and
"coding or writing
for communication" where the techniques for directing
the attention of
the audience matters.
BE BOLD! may work for a wiki but not for communication.
Tim Daly
The uncommunicative curmudgeon.
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
William Sit, Professor Emeritus
Mathematics, City College of New York
Office: R6/291D Tel: 212-650-5179
Home Page: http://scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~wyscc/
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
