On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Lee Fallat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Charlie Kester <[email protected]> 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.
