On Oct 8, 7:23 am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:06:08PM EDT, TerryP wrote: > > > [..] > > >> I am a freak: I do not use nor want syntax highlighting. I don't want > >> my editor to understand mail, irc, or the www either, I want it to > >> edit text efficiently so I can go on with the rest of my life as soon > >> as possible. Given the choice of using a space cadets editor like > >> emacs or something primitive one like ed, I would choose *ed* just to > >> speed things up and save on wrist strain. Before I read a tutorial > >> about vi, I used XEmacs very happily---vi just lines up better with > >> how my brain works. > > >> -- > > >> It is also general consensus that I am nuts ;) > > > I don't think so. > > > Always felt that syntax highlighting for instance is way overrated. Haven't > > tried "ed" yet, but since I have already stripped down my everything to what > > I thought was minimal, now that you mention it, this may be where I'm bound. > > > I do have a question: > > > You mentioned Vim's clientserver mode. > > > What's it good for? > > > Thanks, > > > CJ > > Strange how things can differ from one person to another. Syntax > highlighting is the feature I'm missing the most when I'm using pure vi. > Looks like some are getting annoyed by it, I think it provides useful > and meaningful informations through colors. > > JM
I have found that syntax hilighting is useful, as long as it isn't overwhelming. Zenburn is a great highlighting scheme which is fairly easy on the eyes to use (no startling colors anywhere), yet the differences are enough for me to quickly pick out syntax elements. Garrick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
