A case against syntax highlighting
Do you rely on syntax highlighting when developing software? If so, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. In this post, I will argue that syntax highlighting, while aesthetically seductive, moves focus from content to form, and discourages those who look at the code from trying to understand it.
An example of syntax highlighting.
Background
Syntax highlighting is a standard feature of most modern text editors and development environments. The basic idea is to exaggerate the visual difference between various syntactical elements, to make it easier for the programmer to distinguish between keywords, punctuation and variable names.
Why was syntax highlighting invented in the first place? Did the programmers get the syntax all mixed up when reading code, thinking that ")" was perhaps a variable name or even a preprocessor directive? Of course not. While reading computer programs is often difficult, the difficulty comes from the intricacies of the program, not from the syntax.
Legibility
Perhaps syntax highlighting was invented to speed up the reading process. Yes, that must have been it, highlighted code must be easier to read. After all, it has colours!
Well, no. One of the basic rules of thumb in typography is that, when writing a piece of text, you should choose one typeface and stick to it. Likewise, a splash of colour may grab the reader's attention, but it will inevitably decrease the legibility of the text. The natural flow of the text is broken, and it takes more brain effort to piece together the individual letters into words and semantics. Cognitively, the reading process becomes slightly less automatic and slightly more conscious; leaving less room in the conscious part of the mind for actually understanding the text.
Semantics are more important than syntax
Understanding is vital when reading code. Unlike novels or newspaper articles, where you can skim through a paragraph and learn the gist of it, software is inevitably full of complexities and important details that you just have to take the time to understand. To do that, you need to be looking at the code at the semantic level.
Syntax highlighting applied to fiction. It's easy to spot all the verbs, but why on Earth would you want to do that?
And even when the code is already well-known to them, most developers would rather come across (and fix) memory leaks, security holes and inefficient algorithms than mere syntax errors. Syntax errors will be found by the compiler anyway; the developers shouldn't waste time looking for them. But if syntax highlighting biases their minds towards the syntax of the code rather than its meaning, wouldn't they end up doing just that?
I'm not saying that developers are stupid. But since we all miss the occasional bug here and there — everybody makes mistakes — I think it would be a good idea to configure our tools to help us find them, rather than help us miss them.
An example of bypassing the learning curve: Training wheels.
Learning curve
Maybe syntax highlighting wasn't intended for experienced programmers. Maybe it was introduced in order to flatten the learning curve for newbies, much in the way that some misguided piano teachers put coloured stickers on the keys. I suppose the piano teachers do it to improve communication ("press the yellow key now!" rather than "play an F now!"), but do they honestly believe that children are unable to learn note names? They will have to, eventually, and then they will have to un-learn the colours.
The same phenomenon can be seen in user interface wizards. An advanced operation in, say, an image manipulation program is complex, and the complexity confuses new users. Enter the wizard dialogue box, which will skip or automate some of the steps, at the cost of flexibility. In the end, users only learn how to use the wizard, rather than the complex functionality itself, so the extra flexibility is lost. So you're not flattening the learning curve at all, you're bypassing it.
If you learn to write software in colour, you will probably find it difficult (or at least awkward) to look at the same code without colours, or even with a different colour scheme. Seen in that light, syntax highlighting is an educational dead end. It's like learning how to ride a bike with training wheels. You won't be able to ride a normal bike until you un-learn some of the techniques you've picked up along the way.
The exceptions
There are two cases in which syntax highlighting can actually contribute something. The first one concerns multi-line comments. If you're jumping around in a source code file, perhaps as part of an interactive search-and-replace operation, you might end up in the middle of a large block of commented-out code. You begin reading it as code, and after a while you run into an end-of-comment token, and realize that you've been reading a comment all along. In this case, rendering all comments in a different colour would have prevented the mistake.
On the other hand, that would be a short-sighted solution. Most people agree that commenting out code should be seen as a highly temporary debugging technique, and that the commented-out code must be removed or rewritten sooner or later. Changing its colour to get it out of sight would be like sweeping it under the rug.
The second case mainly concerns the C language. Accidentally writing "=" instead of "==" can result in a bug that is particularly hard to find, since you can sit and stare at it for a long time without actually seeing it. This is the only case I've found, where you would benefit from being able to focus on the syntactical level of the code, without paying too much attention to the semantic context. With syntax highlighting it would be possible to mark "=" and "==" in different colours. Yay! A good reason for implementing syntax highlighting! But — and at this point it probably won't surprise you — every colour scheme I've come across uses the same colour to highlight both "=" and "==".
Conclusions
Syntax highlighting doesn't improve legibility. It encourages you to skim through code rather than understand it. It makes you focus on syntax errors rather than real bugs, and it gets in the way of your learning. Arguably, it even encourages you to procrastinate the removal of commented-out code blocks. And current implementations of it fail to differentiate between "=" and "==", the only situation in which it would have been useful.
Who would invent such a horrible feature? My best guess is that it started out as a cool idea that was fun to implement. Now it has become a selling point; people frown upon editors that don't support it, even though they would be better off without it. This is a common enough phenomenon; examples include semi-transparent console windows and other eye-candy.
I recommend that you take the red pill: Edit your code without syntax highlighting, or at least settle for a minimalistic approach with just two colours (one for comments and one for code). Be warned that your code may actually look rather ugly without its colourful front, but at least you'll be seeing it for what it really is.
The emperor isn't naked this time around. He's wearing an amazing technicolor clown suit.
Posted Sunday 26-Aug-2007 11:44
Discuss this page
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for what people (other than myself) write in the forums. Please report any abuse, such as insults, slander, spam and illegal material, and I will take appropriate actions. Don't feed the trolls.
Jag tar inget ansvar för det som skrivs i forumet, förutom mina egna inlägg. Vänligen rapportera alla inlägg som bryter mot reglerna, så ska jag se vad jag kan göra. Som regelbrott räknas till exempel förolämpningar, förtal, spam och olagligt material. Mata inte trålarna.
Anonymous
Mon 15-Oct-2007 17:45
Mon 15-Oct-2007 17:45
Hi,
Just read your article ... and no, I am not fully convinced.
Consider intending the code. Going by your argument, is it not just about presentation rather than semantics of code. If you read the code carefully (and have enough time on hand) you can make sense of even the most ugly-intended code.
But still, like intending is a useful tool in hand, so is highlighting. And just like different styles of intending you have the right to have your own style of syntax coloring (or lack of it).
Cheers,
Arun
Just read your article ... and no, I am not fully convinced.
Consider intending the code. Going by your argument, is it not just about presentation rather than semantics of code. If you read the code carefully (and have enough time on hand) you can make sense of even the most ugly-intended code.
But still, like intending is a useful tool in hand, so is highlighting. And just like different styles of intending you have the right to have your own style of syntax coloring (or lack of it).
Cheers,
Arun
triad
Linus Walleij
Wed 17-Oct-2007 21:48
Linus Walleij
Wed 17-Oct-2007 21:48
I can't remember a single time I was helped by syntax highlighting, perhaps as you state it is a bit comfortable to color out comments, but that's it.
But hey, if only semantics matter we could also do away with indentation and that actually (IMHO) serves some kind of purpose as a perception aid. I also perceive being cognition-wise assisted by EMACS features that blink the line of opening "{" when typing terminating "}" in the edit buffer.
The visual studio/visual assist/eclipse guys will say auto-completion helps a lot in object-oriented development. I dunno. I once saw it as a way of trying to deal with unnecessary hierarchies introduced by too much OOP.
But hey, if only semantics matter we could also do away with indentation and that actually (IMHO) serves some kind of purpose as a perception aid. I also perceive being cognition-wise assisted by EMACS features that blink the line of opening "{" when typing terminating "}" in the edit buffer.
The visual studio/visual assist/eclipse guys will say auto-completion helps a lot in object-oriented development. I dunno. I once saw it as a way of trying to deal with unnecessary hierarchies introduced by too much OOP.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 09:38
Thu 25-Oct-2007 09:38
I don't blame you for hating the colors that you've shown here. They're a hideous rainbow of confusion.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 09:43
Thu 25-Oct-2007 09:43
This argument is specious and it is absurd beyond all reckoning. Coloring every word of a paragraph in natural language is in no way similar to syntax coloring in a programming language.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 13:21
Thu 25-Oct-2007 13:21
I think the idea of syntax highlighting is to clarify the syntax so that the brain can more easily ignore it. Basically, it takes the job of recognizing the structure of the source you're looking it, out of your hands, letting you focus purely on the semantics of the code.
English prose, where the syntax forms an integral part of the reading experience, is completely uncomparable with code, which needs a rigid syntax primarily to help the compiler, not the programmer.
English prose, where the syntax forms an integral part of the reading experience, is completely uncomparable with code, which needs a rigid syntax primarily to help the compiler, not the programmer.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 14:13
Thu 25-Oct-2007 14:13
Wait a minute, is this linkbait? Syntax highlighting? With compilers, debuggers, code generators, visual editors, and so many other tools that are constantly abused or relied on as a crutch, you complain about syntax highlighting?
And how do you prove your point? By creating a feeble straw man. We don't color our prose just as we don't start our programs with "once upon a time." The only thing in common in those two snippets is that they can be stored as a stream of ASCII characters. They serve complete different purposes and should never be conflated.
While I agree that some editors go overboard, I don't think you should throw the baby with the bathwater. Being able to step back and see the outline of your piece of code before you dive in again is extremely valuable once you grow beyond the hobbyist project.
And how do you prove your point? By creating a feeble straw man. We don't color our prose just as we don't start our programs with "once upon a time." The only thing in common in those two snippets is that they can be stored as a stream of ASCII characters. They serve complete different purposes and should never be conflated.
While I agree that some editors go overboard, I don't think you should throw the baby with the bathwater. Being able to step back and see the outline of your piece of code before you dive in again is extremely valuable once you grow beyond the hobbyist project.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Thu 25-Oct-2007 15:43
Linus Åkesson
Thu 25-Oct-2007 15:43
Thank you for all the feedback! Some of your arguments are really good, e.g. the one about indentation. I'll have to think about that.
Many of you complain about my comparison with prose. However, I don't use that as an argument in the text. I even write "Unlike novels..." in the section about semantics. I added the Alice in Wonderland quote as an amusing illustration. Perhaps some of you were just skimming through the article, rather than trying to understand it... =)
I believe that some things should not be made as simple as possible, because when a task is too simple, people do it without thinking. Developing software is complex and error-prone, so people need to be thinking when doing it. And yeah, I realize that these opinions are controversial to some.
Many of you complain about my comparison with prose. However, I don't use that as an argument in the text. I even write "Unlike novels..." in the section about semantics. I added the Alice in Wonderland quote as an amusing illustration. Perhaps some of you were just skimming through the article, rather than trying to understand it... =)
I believe that some things should not be made as simple as possible, because when a task is too simple, people do it without thinking. Developing software is complex and error-prone, so people need to be thinking when doing it. And yeah, I realize that these opinions are controversial to some.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 16:54
Thu 25-Oct-2007 16:54
Having programmed since the middle eighties when there was not syntax coloring. I would call foul, maybe you have a horrible color scheme but color syntax helps you when coding to actually write code that will compile vs. code that won't.
Maybe you only use intellisense for picking types in which case maybe you can get rid of highlighting, but since I type faster than intellisense 90% of the time, I like the color changing to a "type" color when I am done. It also makes finding un-escaped quotes in strings easier.
Want a story where syntax helped? OK. I used to work with the worlds worst speller, he spelled dEfault dAfault which in c/c++ is fine it just becomes a tag named "dafault:" and compiles merrily along. The misspelling is hard to spot reading through code, when at least for myself, I automatically correct misspellings when I read, but with syntax coloring it is VERY obvious. Note: He did not use coloring and I did. He spent days on the bug and had no clue. I spent 10 minutes.
Feel free to not use syntax highlighting, but if you work for me and I find a bug that would never have been had you colored your code, don't be mad when I say I told you so.
Maybe you only use intellisense for picking types in which case maybe you can get rid of highlighting, but since I type faster than intellisense 90% of the time, I like the color changing to a "type" color when I am done. It also makes finding un-escaped quotes in strings easier.
Want a story where syntax helped? OK. I used to work with the worlds worst speller, he spelled dEfault dAfault which in c/c++ is fine it just becomes a tag named "dafault:" and compiles merrily along. The misspelling is hard to spot reading through code, when at least for myself, I automatically correct misspellings when I read, but with syntax coloring it is VERY obvious. Note: He did not use coloring and I did. He spent days on the bug and had no clue. I spent 10 minutes.
Feel free to not use syntax highlighting, but if you work for me and I find a bug that would never have been had you colored your code, don't be mad when I say I told you so.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 17:21
Thu 25-Oct-2007 17:21
This is idiotic. If syntax highlighting helps you, use it. If it doesn't, don't. But don't try to make a creaky argument for a personal preference, treating as objective something that is entirely subjective.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2007 19:40
Thu 25-Oct-2007 19:40
lft wrote:
I believe that some things should not be made as simple as possible, because when a task is too simple, people do it without thinking. Developing software is complex and error-prone, so people need to be thinking when doing it. And yeah, I realize that these opinions are controversial to some.I will give you another example I dislike wizards myself, not because they make my life too easy, but because they lead to a false sense of security and frequently mangle my own code. They make my life harder pretending to make it easier.
lft wrote:
Many of you complain about my comparison with prose. However, I don't use that as an argument in the text. I even write "Unlike novels..." in the section about semantics. I added the Alice in Wonderland quote as an amusing illustration. Perhaps some of you were just skimming through the article, rather than trying to understand it... =)lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 26-Oct-2007 15:53
Linus Åkesson
Fri 26-Oct-2007 15:53
Bad behavior -- like smoking, shoplifting, or checking in code without unit tests -- should be made hard. Everything else should be made as simple as possible. Your own article confirms this.
Exactly. And making changes in code that one doesn't fully understand is bad, dangerous behaviour.
You don't dislike syntax highlighting because it makes it too easy for you to code, instead, you dislike it because you find your editor's fruit salad syntax highlighting distracting enough that it makes it _harder_.
But my point is that syntax highlighting makes it easier for us to dive in and fix the code before we understand it, because it encourages us to skim through the code on a superficial level. The syntax highlighting distracts us from seeing the forest by making it easier to see the trees.
Anonymous
Tue 30-Oct-2007 14:52
Tue 30-Oct-2007 14:52
First, sorry for my bad English.
First, and most important. If you color some program in random colors, like you did with your Alice In Wonderland text, it REALLY will be hard to read.
Computer program is not intended to be read sequentially, instead it contains several layers of semantics, tokens grouped into higher order structures. For example, thanks to syntax highlighting, when you are searching for an identifier, you can skip comments, string constants and operators. In computer program SAME english
word can have different meaning in different places and therefore will confuse you and will slow down your work. Syntax highlighting can show you, for example, that you are using library subroutine name as variable. And, in C, this can be a serious problem. In fact, ability of Visual Assist to distinguish between macros, variables and functions makes this seriously outdated language much more bearable and allows for using more powerful and dangerous features ( especially preprocessor :) ) without fear of shooting youself in the foot.
First, and most important. If you color some program in random colors, like you did with your Alice In Wonderland text, it REALLY will be hard to read.
Computer program is not intended to be read sequentially, instead it contains several layers of semantics, tokens grouped into higher order structures. For example, thanks to syntax highlighting, when you are searching for an identifier, you can skip comments, string constants and operators. In computer program SAME english
word can have different meaning in different places and therefore will confuse you and will slow down your work. Syntax highlighting can show you, for example, that you are using library subroutine name as variable. And, in C, this can be a serious problem. In fact, ability of Visual Assist to distinguish between macros, variables and functions makes this seriously outdated language much more bearable and allows for using more powerful and dangerous features ( especially preprocessor :) ) without fear of shooting youself in the foot.
Anonymous
Thu 13-Dec-2007 12:51
Thu 13-Dec-2007 12:51
I tend to agree with you on this. The only meaningful use of syntax highlighting is differentiating between the various classes of text you may encounter in a source code: code, strings, comments.
They change the meaning of text profoundly, so it's very handy to have a way of quickly making a distinction between them.
But once I see that "x = func(a) + 2" is code, I can figure the rest on my own, thankyouverymuch.
(And quotes and such are often typeset differently in real books, too.)
[Oh, and I just came here for the Parallax score... :) Eh, happy St. Lucia Dag or whatever you call it :) ]
They change the meaning of text profoundly, so it's very handy to have a way of quickly making a distinction between them.
But once I see that "x = func(a) + 2" is code, I can figure the rest on my own, thankyouverymuch.
(And quotes and such are often typeset differently in real books, too.)
[Oh, and I just came here for the Parallax score... :) Eh, happy St. Lucia Dag or whatever you call it :) ]
Anonymous
Fri 14-Dec-2007 16:14
Fri 14-Dec-2007 16:14
Ehh... Syntax highlighting actually helps me. Anyone know Eclipse? And anyone know Java? If you do, you propably know that Java is very case-sensitive. As I have the habit of typing very fast, i'm not very accurate. If I didn't have syntax highlighting, I could write System.Out.println instead of System.out.println and not notice anything. But because I have the marvellous highlighting of Eclipse, I see it straight away because the "Out" wouldn't be blue and in italics, as it would be in correctly typed code.
Anonymous
Fri 4-Jan-2008 17:00
Fri 4-Jan-2008 17:00
If you color some program in random colors, like you did with your Alice In Wonderland text, it REALLY will be hard to read.
They're not random at all! He assigned colours to words of certain grammatical function. I don't know if he coloured it in all right, but verbs are one colour, nouns are another, adjectives another.. ect. It's annoying to read because our brain naturally "parses" the sentence.
Code, however, is another story. I'm not a professional programmer, I'm a physicist, but often I use colour to make proofs easier to read. Similarly I find colour coded and properly indented code to be much easier to read. But to each his own.
Anonymous
Wed 16-Jan-2008 21:19
Wed 16-Jan-2008 21:19
Hi just read this I do actually think I partly agree, and you wrote it in a way that made me enjoy reading it a lot! Thanks for being funny, you lit up my boring evening. :)
carlsson
Anders Carlsson [Zapac]
Tue 22-Jan-2008 12:12
Anders Carlsson [Zapac]
Tue 22-Jan-2008 12:12
I don't like "Christmas tree" highlighting. That's why I prefer to use Emacs, either through a standard terminal window or with colours turned off. I'm all for automatic indentation and brace matching though.
Anonymous
Mon 28-Jan-2008 13:54
Mon 28-Jan-2008 13:54
lft wrote:
Thank you for all the feedback! Some of your arguments are really good, e.g. the one about indentation. I'll have to think about that.Indentation is much more semantics than syntax, that is why indentation
actually adds readabilty to your programs.
Anonymous
Thu 21-Feb-2008 21:46
Thu 21-Feb-2008 21:46
I fully disagree with your article. There is nothing controversial about ignorance.
You are turning a personal preference into an objective matter, without even discussing the subjectivity of the matter at all. To stack upon, a misleading example of freakshow highlighting (which you connect directly to the article by its subtitle) and a totally irrelevant comparison of learning curves, even though syntax highlighting was introduced to evade common syntax errors and enabling skimming through large source codes more easily. This new feature aimed towards professional developers, since the use of computers was mainly that of developers and academics.
And yes, I know what you'll say here; "Skimming is no good, you miss things and that's bad." Well, let's take your own example of the color splash. We both agree that it takes a longer time to read those words than the main, black text, right? But as we know, professional syntax highlighting almost never colors two words next to each other in different colors, it colors the key words in one and the rest in black. Common exceptions are comments, classes and variables. This means that you read mainly black, non-highlighted code, and occasionally your eyes fixates on a variable or class name.
In this case (general programming), it is a good thing that it takes a bit longer to skim through just that word, because it is important. We don't want to miss the semantic structure, as you wrote. The result of this skimming would be a list of class names instead of classes, to more easily find what we want to focus on. Next, we step into the class and understand the parts of it by the hierarchy we retrieved from our skimming through highlighted code. The same principle is implemented all the way down.
As mentioned above, it is a very good thing to be able to differ classes from properties. Without syntax highlighting, I cannot think of a quick way to determine the object type. It is also easier to identify upper/lowercase errors on-the-fly.
You are turning a personal preference into an objective matter, without even discussing the subjectivity of the matter at all. To stack upon, a misleading example of freakshow highlighting (which you connect directly to the article by its subtitle) and a totally irrelevant comparison of learning curves, even though syntax highlighting was introduced to evade common syntax errors and enabling skimming through large source codes more easily. This new feature aimed towards professional developers, since the use of computers was mainly that of developers and academics.
And yes, I know what you'll say here; "Skimming is no good, you miss things and that's bad." Well, let's take your own example of the color splash. We both agree that it takes a longer time to read those words than the main, black text, right? But as we know, professional syntax highlighting almost never colors two words next to each other in different colors, it colors the key words in one and the rest in black. Common exceptions are comments, classes and variables. This means that you read mainly black, non-highlighted code, and occasionally your eyes fixates on a variable or class name.
In this case (general programming), it is a good thing that it takes a bit longer to skim through just that word, because it is important. We don't want to miss the semantic structure, as you wrote. The result of this skimming would be a list of class names instead of classes, to more easily find what we want to focus on. Next, we step into the class and understand the parts of it by the hierarchy we retrieved from our skimming through highlighted code. The same principle is implemented all the way down.
As mentioned above, it is a very good thing to be able to differ classes from properties. Without syntax highlighting, I cannot think of a quick way to determine the object type. It is also easier to identify upper/lowercase errors on-the-fly.
Anonymous
Mon 10-Mar-2008 12:07
Mon 10-Mar-2008 12:07
The natural flow of the text is broken, and it takes more brain effort to piece together the individual letters into words and semantics. Cognitively, the reading process becomes slightly less automatic and slightly more conscious; leaving less room in the conscious part of the mind for actually understanding the text.
First of all, the brain processes colours with one side and understands text with the other, so you're just using both sides of the brain in stead of just one. The only "bad" thing about it is that you use more energy, but that doesn't mean it takes more time to figure out what the code does. On the other side you find the bug a lot faster so overall you save energy./*Second, try this piece of C code:
void main(void)
{
int d, d, ad;
printf("%d%d", dd, ad);
}
/*or PHP:*/
$pet_name = 'Pet name';
$info->name = "{$pet->name}: {$pet->name}<br />";
//in stead of
$info->name = "{$pet_name}: {$pet->name}<br />";
/*If you have previously defined both $pet (object) and $pet_name (string), you might not notice that -> is an operator. Maybe you didn't do it, but someone before you did, there's a bug in the program and now you have to find it.
It's probably hard to find where my code starts and where it ends because you don't highlight comments.*/
In the C program, there's a /* without an ending */ before void main(void). The /* may be 50 lines above and your compiler keeps complaining there's no main() function, but you can swear there is because you see it.
-Tom
Anonymous
Sun 6-Apr-2008 16:29
Sun 6-Apr-2008 16:29
I think you have a case for a lot of languages, but one interesting case is that of LateX - without syntax highlighting you really have to stare at the screen to see if you've written \subsection{} which is an operator, or subsection{}, which the typesetter will parse as normal text. By the way, I know that LateX is not a programming language, but I feel it's relevant.
Anonymous
Sat 3-May-2008 23:20
Sat 3-May-2008 23:20
The syntax-highlighting shot looks like Vim, am I right?
I'm using Vim a lot too because it's a really great editor, but it's syntax-highlighting is indeed really crappy and useless.
On Eclipse for example there are only 2 basic highlighting colors for the stuff Vim does too: green for comments and bold purple for keywords and builtin-stuff. All other colors are used for special things like highlighting enums, classes etc. or placing a grey background behind the parts of the code that won't be parsed because of preprocessor-statements like #if, #else and so on.
Highlighting of strings, numbers, operators etc. like Vim does it isn't done by default, because it's useless most of the time.
I think the highlighting of Vim could be much better if it would only highlight comments and keywords like Eclipse does (If you ignore the things like highlighting defined variables and so on that aren't possible with a simple editor because it doesn't know all source-files of your project). Maybe the Vim-guys tried to use as much colors, as an IDE uses for all things it's able to highlight, to highlight the basic things that are normally highlighted with only 2 colors :P
I'm using Vim a lot too because it's a really great editor, but it's syntax-highlighting is indeed really crappy and useless.
On Eclipse for example there are only 2 basic highlighting colors for the stuff Vim does too: green for comments and bold purple for keywords and builtin-stuff. All other colors are used for special things like highlighting enums, classes etc. or placing a grey background behind the parts of the code that won't be parsed because of preprocessor-statements like #if, #else and so on.
Highlighting of strings, numbers, operators etc. like Vim does it isn't done by default, because it's useless most of the time.
I think the highlighting of Vim could be much better if it would only highlight comments and keywords like Eclipse does (If you ignore the things like highlighting defined variables and so on that aren't possible with a simple editor because it doesn't know all source-files of your project). Maybe the Vim-guys tried to use as much colors, as an IDE uses for all things it's able to highlight, to highlight the basic things that are normally highlighted with only 2 colors :P
Ferruccio
Tue 22-Jul-2008 13:51
Tue 22-Jul-2008 13:51
Thanks. You expressed this notion much better than I did:
http://the-lazy-programmer.com/blog/?p=9
http://the-lazy-programmer.com/blog/?p=9
Anonymous
Thu 24-Jul-2008 22:09
Thu 24-Jul-2008 22:09
I think the highlighting of Vim could be much better if it would only highlight comments and keywords like Eclipse does (If you ignore the things like highlighting defined variables and so on that aren't possible with a simple editor because it doesn't know all source-files of your project). Maybe the Vim-guys tried to use as much colors, as an IDE uses for all things it's able to highlight, to highlight the basic things that are normally highlighted with only 2 colors :P
You can write your own syntax highlight file where you only specify certain items to be highlighted.papasmurph
Papa Smurph
Sun 24-Aug-2008 18:54
Papa Smurph
Sun 24-Aug-2008 18:54
I tend to use syntax highlighting to see syntactic errors in multi-language source. When writing web applications it's typical to deal with HTML, Javascript, PHP and SQL mixed in the same file, so it's beneficial to see where one thing ends and another starts. I agree that semantics is the main "problem" in programming, but as I yet haven't found an editor that understands strings containing SQL it's still a good thing to highlight the string itself with all the escapes etc. It's very easy to get hard to find errors in SQL sequences.
What I do to lessen the fragmented appearance of syntax colored text is to at least always use the same text format: Whenever an editor chooses italic or bold by default for certain items I set that back to normal text. That makes items pop up less, and the text hence becomes easier to read.
What I do to lessen the fragmented appearance of syntax colored text is to at least always use the same text format: Whenever an editor chooses italic or bold by default for certain items I set that back to normal text. That makes items pop up less, and the text hence becomes easier to read.
Anonymous
Sat 13-Sep-2008 03:17
Sat 13-Sep-2008 03:17
It surprises me that this topic generates so much heat! It's not as if Linus is threatening to take away your syntax-highlighting, is it?
I do think that syntax-highlighting traditionally tends to put emphasis on the wrong things — boldfacing language keywords and the like — but I do find it useful; I can follow the syntax more easily, which lets me focus my attention on the semantics of the program. I think comic books have shown that doing something similar to syntax highlighting on English text, by boldfacing the words that carry emphasis in the sentences, also improves readability.
You can see some of the kind of syntax-highlighting I favor at http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/urscheme/ — comments and “noise words” like “if” are faded out a bit, and the names of functions being defined are in a conspicuous blue color which makes it easy to scan for them (rather like boldfacing a header or a term being defined). I could improve on this (it’s just Emacs’s default syntax highlighting) but it's pretty good already. The extras in the vim example in the article don’t add a great deal, to my eye, although they don’t seem quite as distracting to me as to Linus.
— Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org>
I do think that syntax-highlighting traditionally tends to put emphasis on the wrong things — boldfacing language keywords and the like — but I do find it useful; I can follow the syntax more easily, which lets me focus my attention on the semantics of the program. I think comic books have shown that doing something similar to syntax highlighting on English text, by boldfacing the words that carry emphasis in the sentences, also improves readability.
You can see some of the kind of syntax-highlighting I favor at http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/urscheme/ — comments and “noise words” like “if” are faded out a bit, and the names of functions being defined are in a conspicuous blue color which makes it easy to scan for them (rather like boldfacing a header or a term being defined). I could improve on this (it’s just Emacs’s default syntax highlighting) but it's pretty good already. The extras in the vim example in the article don’t add a great deal, to my eye, although they don’t seem quite as distracting to me as to Linus.
— Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org>
Imperceptus
alexander miglin
Wed 17-Sep-2008 17:23
alexander miglin
Wed 17-Sep-2008 17:23
I honestly think that any development that has stemmed from HTML needs syntax highlighting. I do remember when I didn't have it amidst making websites, I am very thankful that I do now.
Although I would agree that languages like c,c++ or even .net could really do away with them with no loss to the author.
Although I would agree that languages like c,c++ or even .net could really do away with them with no loss to the author.
Anonymous
Thu 23-Oct-2008 19:29
Thu 23-Oct-2008 19:29
Agreed. My highlighting is very reduced (black font in general, green comments, bold keywords, blue strings).
Anonymous
Thu 20-Nov-2008 06:20
Thu 20-Nov-2008 06:20
My thoughts are some of the arguments are weak, and syntax highlighting is definitely something that's far more personal preference than anything else.
However, I'd add that "syntax" highlighting alone really isn't all that helpful in understanding a piece of code. +Maybe+ for entering code, but not much else.
On the other hand, +semantic+ highlighting would be in many cases, quite useful, but I've yet to see any editor support it.
For instance, how helpful would it be to see, just from color, that a symbol is not just a variable, but it's a globally scoped var, or a local var?
Or that a member of a class was shared, public, private, or whatever.
Personally, I'd find that type of highlighting far more informative.
However, I'd add that "syntax" highlighting alone really isn't all that helpful in understanding a piece of code. +Maybe+ for entering code, but not much else.
On the other hand, +semantic+ highlighting would be in many cases, quite useful, but I've yet to see any editor support it.
For instance, how helpful would it be to see, just from color, that a symbol is not just a variable, but it's a globally scoped var, or a local var?
Or that a member of a class was shared, public, private, or whatever.
Personally, I'd find that type of highlighting far more informative.
Copperblade
Angelo Bertolli
Fri 21-Nov-2008 01:49
Angelo Bertolli
Fri 21-Nov-2008 01:49
Syntax highlighting is really a feedback mechanism that lets the programmer quickly know when he's made an error in what he thinks he's telling the parser: it's biggest benefit is in letting you know exactly where your tokens begin and end according to what you've typed. It's more than just aesthetics.
Anonymous
Tue 6-Jan-2009 15:58
Tue 6-Jan-2009 15:58
"Perhaps syntax highlighting was invented to speed up the reading process."
You thoroughly persuaded me that prose text should not be color-coded. Good job. Only prose text works by a very different mechanism than code. Code is a set of detailed, logical instructions for a computer to follow. Prose is generally either descriptive, persuasive, explanatory, or emotive--none of which applies in the least to computer code.
You say that color coding leads to this: "Cognitively, the reading process becomes slightly less automatic and slightly more conscious." But one paragraph later you say this: "software is inevitably full of complexities and important details that you just have to take the time to understand." So wouldn't you want the code reading process to be less automatic and more conscious, so you can take the time to understand what you're reading?
"Syntax errors will be found by the compiler anyway; the developers shouldn't waste time looking for them." Come on, we all know that syntax highlighting isn't about finding syntax errors. It's about disambiguating between properties and methods, or strings and code blocks. It actually clarifies the semantic content that the syntax might hide.
Here's the crux of my counter-argument, and it builds on your notion that semantics is more important than syntax: The semantics of code is tightly bound to the syntax. Natural language is horribly inefficient (by comparison) because of the redundancy and error-correction built in. With a person, you can say something ungrammatical (i.e. with syntax errors) and still be understood. With a computer, you can't just say, "Aw, you know what I meant to write--stop complaining and just do it."
~ philosaur
You thoroughly persuaded me that prose text should not be color-coded. Good job. Only prose text works by a very different mechanism than code. Code is a set of detailed, logical instructions for a computer to follow. Prose is generally either descriptive, persuasive, explanatory, or emotive--none of which applies in the least to computer code.
You say that color coding leads to this: "Cognitively, the reading process becomes slightly less automatic and slightly more conscious." But one paragraph later you say this: "software is inevitably full of complexities and important details that you just have to take the time to understand." So wouldn't you want the code reading process to be less automatic and more conscious, so you can take the time to understand what you're reading?
"Syntax errors will be found by the compiler anyway; the developers shouldn't waste time looking for them." Come on, we all know that syntax highlighting isn't about finding syntax errors. It's about disambiguating between properties and methods, or strings and code blocks. It actually clarifies the semantic content that the syntax might hide.
Here's the crux of my counter-argument, and it builds on your notion that semantics is more important than syntax: The semantics of code is tightly bound to the syntax. Natural language is horribly inefficient (by comparison) because of the redundancy and error-correction built in. With a person, you can say something ungrammatical (i.e. with syntax errors) and still be understood. With a computer, you can't just say, "Aw, you know what I meant to write--stop complaining and just do it."
~ philosaur
lft
Linus Åkesson
Thu 8-Jan-2009 19:43
Linus Åkesson
Thu 8-Jan-2009 19:43
Code is a set of detailed, logical instructions for a computer to follow. Prose is generally either descriptive, persuasive, explanatory, or emotive--none of which applies in the least to computer code.
I strongly disagree. Yes, computer code is a set of instructions for a computer to follow. But it is also a means of human communication, and a good programmer strives to write code which is indeed both descriptive and explanatory.
You say that color coding leads to this: "Cognitively, the reading process becomes slightly less automatic and slightly more conscious." But one paragraph later you say this: "software is inevitably full of complexities and important details that you just have to take the time to understand." So wouldn't you want the code reading process to be less automatic and more conscious, so you can take the time to understand what you're reading?
This is a good point. I don't mind slowing down the reading process as such, but when all of that extra time is spent doing cognitive work rather than intelligent reasoning at the semantic level, nothing is gained. There's a trade-off between quantity and quality here, and my original article (or rant, if you prefer) fails to identify it.
Here's the crux of my counter-argument, and it builds on your notion that semantics is more important than syntax: The semantics of code is tightly bound to the syntax.
Again, I don't agree because code is also written for human readers. By changing the names of a few identifiers, reorganizing your data structures, changing the order in which some code is executed -- even though it does not affect the runtime behaviour of your program -- you can help or mislead your audience, and even transform the program from solving problems in one domain into solving (seemingly) different problems in another domain. And when you return to the same code three months later, those choices will have a great effect on how you decide to take the program forward. Code is written for people.
Anonymous
Wed 25-Feb-2009 02:47
Wed 25-Feb-2009 02:47
Oh, you clearly missed the point of syntax highlighting...
Secret: Its use is to easily spot typos (forgetting an " etc)
Secret: Its use is to easily spot typos (forgetting an " etc)
Anonymous
Tue 14-Apr-2009 12:58
Tue 14-Apr-2009 12:58
This is bullshit.
A lot of the time you don't "read" code, you scan it. If you're looking for constructor calls or error messages (strings) then yes, only actually *reading* the green text is many times faster and less error-prone.
In normal text you don't skip every verb (or noun or whatever) but when briefly browsing code you *can* skip strings (green) and just look at the blue words (if,then,else,while,...) plus indentation to get the general flow of the function.
A lot of the time you don't "read" code, you scan it. If you're looking for constructor calls or error messages (strings) then yes, only actually *reading* the green text is many times faster and less error-prone.
In normal text you don't skip every verb (or noun or whatever) but when briefly browsing code you *can* skip strings (green) and just look at the blue words (if,then,else,while,...) plus indentation to get the general flow of the function.
Anonymous
Tue 28-Apr-2009 01:09
Tue 28-Apr-2009 01:09
Det blev en skillnad, så jag kan inte annat än att hålla med dig. Det blev ju mycket läsvänligare.
GingerBread
Fri 29-May-2009 07:47
Fri 29-May-2009 07:47
Computer languages are not about computers, but about humans thinking about programming them.
So, if you argue that colors make you lazy. Why not get rid of the language as well?
I never really used assembler, until I found the AVR. And, yes, I learned so much about The King doing that.
Let no light distract us from our path towards that elevated brightness. Thanks for sharing your 'Craft',
it enlightens my way.
So, if you argue that colors make you lazy. Why not get rid of the language as well?
I never really used assembler, until I found the AVR. And, yes, I learned so much about The King doing that.
Let no light distract us from our path towards that elevated brightness. Thanks for sharing your 'Craft',
it enlightens my way.
Anonymous
Sat 30-May-2009 01:19
Sat 30-May-2009 01:19
It's easy to sometimes forget a closing delimiter on a comment, leading to a bug hunt and wasting your time. This is one utilitarian reason for using syntax highlighting.
Anonymous
Sat 6-Jun-2009 22:23
Sat 6-Jun-2009 22:23
I don't blame you for hating the colors that you've shown here. They're a hideous rainbow of confusion.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Uahh, sorry but as a serious programmer you *should* not rely on syntax highlighting to distinguish between a static function and a property. You always have to know what you are using or calling otherwise you're doomed to produce errors sooner or later. Also any serious programming language should avoid such misunderstandings as much as possible thus making highlighting mostly obsolete.
For identation I think it is a complete other story. I think identation serves more the purpose of paragraphs, making longer texts better readable as long as identation do not reach ridiculous levels.
Anonymous
Mon 13-Jul-2009 23:26
Mon 13-Jul-2009 23:26
Thanks for making me more aware of this. I completely agree with lft, I also agree with the others but I think some are missing his point. Basically I see it as this:
When syntax highlighting is distracting, turn it off.
When syntax highlighting is useful, turn it on.
When syntax highlighting is distracting, turn it off.
When syntax highlighting is useful, turn it on.
Anonymous
Fri 7-Aug-2009 22:33
Fri 7-Aug-2009 22:33
Here's something I find handy about syntax highlighting - brackets, in javascript and many other languages its really useful when nesting code.
Anonymous
Sat 29-Aug-2009 23:58
Sat 29-Aug-2009 23:58
/*Second, try this piece of C code:
void main(void)
{
int d, d, ad;
printf("%d%d", dd, ad);
}
void main(void)
{
int d, d, ad;
printf("%d%d", dd, ad);
}
You have another bug, which syntax highlighting is useless for: you double-define 'd', and you use an undefined variable 'dd'. ;)
Anonymous
Sun 30-Aug-2009 00:02
Sun 30-Aug-2009 00:02
I think you have a case for a lot of languages, but one interesting case is that of LateX - without syntax highlighting you really have to stare at the screen to see if you've written \subsection{} which is an operator, or subsection{}, which the typesetter will parse as normal text. By the way, I know that LateX is not a programming language, but I feel it's relevant.
Actually, it is. TeX, the language underneath LaTeX, is fully Turing complete, and a BASIC interpreter for it exists. Google if you don't believe me.
Anonymous
Sun 30-Aug-2009 00:11
Sun 30-Aug-2009 00:11
"Syntax errors will be found by the compiler anyway; the developers shouldn't waste time looking for them." Come on, we all know that syntax highlighting isn't about finding syntax errors. It's about disambiguating between properties and methods, or strings and code blocks. It actually clarifies the semantic content that the syntax might hide.
Properties vs. methods? Syntax. Strings? Syntax. Code blocks? Syntax. Yeah, I'd pretty much have to say that syntax highlighting has *nothing* whatsoever to do with code semantics, and *everything* to do with discovering syntax errors, and quickly.
Syntax highlighting, in all honesty, WAS introduced with the express intent of helping the coder review his code before kicking off a compile. Anyone who has worked in anything beyond a hobby project knows that a compile run can take minutes to complete, even with partial compilation. Who wants to wait that long?
Syntax highlighting is utterly invaluable from a static analysis point of view.
Here's the crux of my counter-argument, and it builds on your notion that semantics is more important than syntax
I only wish that were true. My favorite languages are Forth and Lisp. Yet, nobody codes in these awesome environments. Why? The stack is too hard for people to grok, or, there's too many parentheses.
Let's just all admit it together now: syntax matters, and it matters BIG-TIME.
Anonymous
Sat 5-Sep-2009 11:42
Sat 5-Sep-2009 11:42
Fascinating... it appears that the most popular argument for syntax highlighting is in fact "spell check". Except it isn't usually set up so that my variables, a rather small dictionary by most measures, are properly spell-checked, even in languages where they are declared.
Block folding though (note that a comment block is also a kind of block)... now that's the stuff!
Now a little mind-experiment diversion: screen reader, "audio syntax highlighting".
Block folding though (note that a comment block is also a kind of block)... now that's the stuff!
Now a little mind-experiment diversion: screen reader, "audio syntax highlighting".
Anonymous
Fri 11-Sep-2009 15:53
Fri 11-Sep-2009 15:53
Glad to see you are hardcore pro syntax highlighting, reading the "The exceptions" part of your, it easy to see that you are against bad highlighing schemes, but then again who isnt?
Anonymous
Tue 27-Oct-2009 20:29
Tue 27-Oct-2009 20:29
OMG!!! :DDDDD
Anonymous
Sat 14-Nov-2009 16:41
Sat 14-Nov-2009 16:41
Although I'm not sure if highlighting keywords/constants actually improves your efficiency of coding/debugging, I'm sure that syntax highlighting does help searching. For a significant amount of time during coding, our eyes are searching stuff. Where's that class/method/function/variable? By highlighting them, we can quickly locate the things we're looking for, which reduces a lot of frustration. You don't necessarily have to use colors for highlighting (though it's the easiest to implement). You could use bigger fonts, for example. This is what people (including you) are actually doing when they put headlines into an article. It just makes easy to navigate within the document. Of course, you can use a search function in your editor, but searching strings can be quite disorientating because you have to jump around the code and you'll certainly lost the sense of contexts. But it was an interesting article anyway. Thanks.
Yusuke Shinyama
Yusuke Shinyama
Anonymous
Wed 9-Dec-2009 05:23
Wed 9-Dec-2009 05:23
To those who claim syntax highlighting is good/necessary/expedient in spite of the rationale in the original post, examine this:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/screen.jpeg
When your code is of quality >= Knuth's, go ahead and claim victory for syntax highlighting. Until then I too am doing without it...
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/screen.jpeg
When your code is of quality >= Knuth's, go ahead and claim victory for syntax highlighting. Until then I too am doing without it...
Anonymous
Thu 18-Mar-2010 20:51
Thu 18-Mar-2010 20:51
Syntax highlighting applied to fiction. It's easy to spot all the verbs, but why on Earth would you want to do that?
When you are learning about verbs. Duh.
When you are learning about verbs. Duh.
Anonymous
Tue 23-Mar-2010 13:51
Tue 23-Mar-2010 13:51
Didn't read through the comments, but I think your article is totally wrong.
Especially since C/C++ is not a normal language with lots of redundancies, it is crucial for reading C/C++ that you decipher the syntax as quick as possible to be able to continously reading the semantic.
Following your line of argument, you should remove all whitespaces and all line-breaks, all colours and everything from the source code before reading it. As it's all "only syntax". Non-sense!
The syntax highlighting helps to keep track of the semantic, it does not draw attention away from it!
Good syntax highlighting is used to mark different semantic contextes a word can appear in. Italic for static globals, blue for reserved identifiers, cyan for macros etc. It is uttermost important to reading the semantic that you know about the semantic context. In normal language, this is done by placing words on certain positions or by capitalize them (e.g. in german, all nouns are capitalized). It evolved because it makes text much easier to read.
Especially since C/C++ is not a normal language with lots of redundancies, it is crucial for reading C/C++ that you decipher the syntax as quick as possible to be able to continously reading the semantic.
Following your line of argument, you should remove all whitespaces and all line-breaks, all colours and everything from the source code before reading it. As it's all "only syntax". Non-sense!
The syntax highlighting helps to keep track of the semantic, it does not draw attention away from it!
Good syntax highlighting is used to mark different semantic contextes a word can appear in. Italic for static globals, blue for reserved identifiers, cyan for macros etc. It is uttermost important to reading the semantic that you know about the semantic context. In normal language, this is done by placing words on certain positions or by capitalize them (e.g. in german, all nouns are capitalized). It evolved because it makes text much easier to read.
Anonymous
Sun 2-May-2010 17:40
Sun 2-May-2010 17:40
No, why in the world should we have syntax highlighting?
Do you color an 'F' differently from '6'? Just imagine how this would look:
38D2F4672B1AA9
You ARE writing code in machine code, right lft?
Using an assembler or compiler would be waaay to 'easy'.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
Do you color an 'F' differently from '6'? Just imagine how this would look:
38D2F4672B1AA9
You ARE writing code in machine code, right lft?
Using an assembler or compiler would be waaay to 'easy'.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Mon 3-May-2010 06:17
Linus Åkesson
Mon 3-May-2010 06:17
Using an assembler or compiler would be waaay to 'easy'.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
A high-level programming language adds power by allowing you to express complex ideas concisely. Training wheels remove power by replacing a hard job with a superficially similar but easier job. It's like taking an acting class in order to become an engineer.
Anonymous
Sat 8-May-2010 23:46
Sat 8-May-2010 23:46
I agree that people should consider "taking the red pill", but for a different reason. I don't believe that syntax highlighting affects the understanding of code in any way (i.e. not better, and not worse).
However, I do believe that people tend to become too dependent on their specific environment. Today people are completely dependent on having bash, colorls, vim/emacs with all their own specific plugins and configuration files, etc.
Give someone who, supposedly, feels at home with Unix a system with no more than a traditional /bin/sh, the simplest form of ls and nothing more than vi, and they moan like they've been ordered, by their mom, to clean their room before they can go out and play.
I don't mind having all the bell's'whistles, but I also use the most basic of tools (ed, ftw!) from time to time, because I don't want to have to waste an hour setting up "my" environment if I need to do something with a system which is new to me.
I'm impressed with some of the vim hacks I've seen. But I'm honestly even more impressed by people who can function at full capacity without them.
However, I do believe that people tend to become too dependent on their specific environment. Today people are completely dependent on having bash, colorls, vim/emacs with all their own specific plugins and configuration files, etc.
Give someone who, supposedly, feels at home with Unix a system with no more than a traditional /bin/sh, the simplest form of ls and nothing more than vi, and they moan like they've been ordered, by their mom, to clean their room before they can go out and play.
I don't mind having all the bell's'whistles, but I also use the most basic of tools (ed, ftw!) from time to time, because I don't want to have to waste an hour setting up "my" environment if I need to do something with a system which is new to me.
I'm impressed with some of the vim hacks I've seen. But I'm honestly even more impressed by people who can function at full capacity without them.
Anonymous
Fri 23-Jul-2010 00:18
Fri 23-Jul-2010 00:18
i agree with most of the pre-commentators. syntax highlighting basicly adds another dimension to visuallizing the hierarchy of the code, like indentation does. i am a novice programmer, but i never found myself thinking about the syntax highlighting, unlike stated in the article. i merely notice when it isnt there, unlike automatic indentation. i see the main purpose for writing code, not for reading it. when i miss a quotation mark or misstype a language keyword, the mistakes are easy to spot.
additionally, colors make your code look much more friendly :)
additionally, colors make your code look much more friendly :)
Anonymous
Fri 23-Jul-2010 16:23
Fri 23-Jul-2010 16:23
I think it's more on the part of the programmer rather than the program you're editing your code in. As a programmer, I make my code readable because it's the right thing to do. Highlighting has never been a hindrance to me, because I never relied on it. I learned about highlighting long after I started programming. I don't use a debugger, I still actually add lines to show me what's been done... Call me old-school, or weird. But good code helps others, as well as you, know what you meant to do. Just like commenting your code.
But I also like Syntax Highlighting. It's something that actually helps me program. I got into my Highlighting area, and added words I know I'll use. Everything that has to do with strings is one color, math functions another. It makes it easy for me to see where things are happening in the program. Yet it's not a crutch or a training wheel, because I don't rely on it. Without it, I can still chart the flow of my program.
I see your point about not starting with it. However, I don't see a reason to get rid of it. I learned to program in BASIC. While BASIC can do things, that doesn't mean that I should have never graduated to C or further because those things help me do things faster. A good analogy would be this. You start in BASIC. Now, you move on to either C or Fortran. Well, some people prefer C and some prefer Fortran. OK, so program in the one you want to. And if you replace C with "Syntax Highlighting", and Fortran with "Syntax Non-Highlighting" there you go. Use what feels right.
But I also like Syntax Highlighting. It's something that actually helps me program. I got into my Highlighting area, and added words I know I'll use. Everything that has to do with strings is one color, math functions another. It makes it easy for me to see where things are happening in the program. Yet it's not a crutch or a training wheel, because I don't rely on it. Without it, I can still chart the flow of my program.
I see your point about not starting with it. However, I don't see a reason to get rid of it. I learned to program in BASIC. While BASIC can do things, that doesn't mean that I should have never graduated to C or further because those things help me do things faster. A good analogy would be this. You start in BASIC. Now, you move on to either C or Fortran. Well, some people prefer C and some prefer Fortran. OK, so program in the one you want to. And if you replace C with "Syntax Highlighting", and Fortran with "Syntax Non-Highlighting" there you go. Use what feels right.
Anonymous
Sat 24-Jul-2010 11:56
Sat 24-Jul-2010 11:56
(I didn't read the too many comments before posting)
I do rely on syntax highlighting, and I think that nearly all your points are wrong.
You say the difficulty comes from the semantic of the program, not its syntax. No, it comes from both. I have tried a lot of languages, and never encountered one whose syntax had zero problems, so any help is welcome (besides, knowing several languages means being confused more easily by small syntax differences, unless my editor helps with colors).
You argue that color draw attention too much and that it becomes cognitively harder to read because of the mental overhead of processing colors.
That is very true if you use bright primary colors like in your Alice example, but a good (sober) color scheme actually do not distract, only give more information to the reader. Another thing: prose is very different from code, since its syntax is not at all relevant in the same way. Today, most default color schemes for code are not very colorful.
Concerning the mental overhead, you'll find that text color is actually processed at a nearly-hardware level by the brain. Once you are accustomed to read colored valid code, colors will only stand out when the code is invalid. The rest of the time, when the code is syntaxically valid, I can fully concentrate on the semantics. I'd rather discover (and correct) any syntax error sooner than later: running a compiler is *way* slower than having your editor tell you. And this kind of time waste is one of the very worst in software engineering.
You mention the "only" use you found for colors: knowing if you are in a comment. This can be extended easily to knowing whether you are in a valid string, or whether you made a mistake in the quoting inside the string. So that instantly makes two use cases (ok that was easy).
You say that colors make it more difficult to find bugs. Could it be that you have never encoutered a bug that was caused by syntax alone ? Compilers don't catch everything, and sometimes you use interpreters, which choke on syntax at runtime.
Your whole comparison to training wheels implicitly assumes that the end goal is knowing how to read/write code without colors. But since it is more difficult without colors, it is also less desirable to do so. My end goal is coding better and faster, so I choose to be helped by tools like a good editor and syntax highlighting. If I'm less good at writing code when there is no color, it does not matter at all, since I choosed not do otherwise.
So, I'm not convinced at all. I know by experience that with colors I can read/write better code more easily and faster. Can it really not be the case for you?
I do rely on syntax highlighting, and I think that nearly all your points are wrong.
You say the difficulty comes from the semantic of the program, not its syntax. No, it comes from both. I have tried a lot of languages, and never encountered one whose syntax had zero problems, so any help is welcome (besides, knowing several languages means being confused more easily by small syntax differences, unless my editor helps with colors).
You argue that color draw attention too much and that it becomes cognitively harder to read because of the mental overhead of processing colors.
That is very true if you use bright primary colors like in your Alice example, but a good (sober) color scheme actually do not distract, only give more information to the reader. Another thing: prose is very different from code, since its syntax is not at all relevant in the same way. Today, most default color schemes for code are not very colorful.
Concerning the mental overhead, you'll find that text color is actually processed at a nearly-hardware level by the brain. Once you are accustomed to read colored valid code, colors will only stand out when the code is invalid. The rest of the time, when the code is syntaxically valid, I can fully concentrate on the semantics. I'd rather discover (and correct) any syntax error sooner than later: running a compiler is *way* slower than having your editor tell you. And this kind of time waste is one of the very worst in software engineering.
You mention the "only" use you found for colors: knowing if you are in a comment. This can be extended easily to knowing whether you are in a valid string, or whether you made a mistake in the quoting inside the string. So that instantly makes two use cases (ok that was easy).
You say that colors make it more difficult to find bugs. Could it be that you have never encoutered a bug that was caused by syntax alone ? Compilers don't catch everything, and sometimes you use interpreters, which choke on syntax at runtime.
Your whole comparison to training wheels implicitly assumes that the end goal is knowing how to read/write code without colors. But since it is more difficult without colors, it is also less desirable to do so. My end goal is coding better and faster, so I choose to be helped by tools like a good editor and syntax highlighting. If I'm less good at writing code when there is no color, it does not matter at all, since I choosed not do otherwise.
So, I'm not convinced at all. I know by experience that with colors I can read/write better code more easily and faster. Can it really not be the case for you?
Anonymous
Mon 26-Jul-2010 01:49
Mon 26-Jul-2010 01:49
Word, man, word!
The first thing I do when stumbling over syntax highlighting in vi, is to do a simple ":syntax off".
Thanks a lot for a very nice website!
//magnus
The first thing I do when stumbling over syntax highlighting in vi, is to do a simple ":syntax off".
Thanks a lot for a very nice website!
//magnus
Anonymous
Mon 16-Aug-2010 17:03
Mon 16-Aug-2010 17:03
Hello lft,
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
It's one of the basic principles of design, and since you're into typography I kinda expected you to be familiar with this.
I always smile at hardcore coders with black&white screens, who think basic principles of cognitive psychology don't apply to them :)
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
It's one of the basic principles of design, and since you're into typography I kinda expected you to be familiar with this.
I always smile at hardcore coders with black&white screens, who think basic principles of cognitive psychology don't apply to them :)
Anonymous
Tue 17-Aug-2010 08:42
Tue 17-Aug-2010 08:42
Hi Linus,
I also disagree with you. OTOH, I want to point out that there *are* sensible and stupid syntax highlighters and color schemes. The example that you provided is indeed a bad one: I don't need strings, numbers, and operators to be colored differently.
What I *do* need is indeed coloring of comments and high-level identifiers, i.e. function/class/method names.
That really enhances the perception when skimming through code.
Have a nice day,
Hans
PS: I am sorry, I have not read most of the anonymous comments yet, so maybe this has been pointed out earlier.
I also disagree with you. OTOH, I want to point out that there *are* sensible and stupid syntax highlighters and color schemes. The example that you provided is indeed a bad one: I don't need strings, numbers, and operators to be colored differently.
What I *do* need is indeed coloring of comments and high-level identifiers, i.e. function/class/method names.
That really enhances the perception when skimming through code.
Have a nice day,
Hans
PS: I am sorry, I have not read most of the anonymous comments yet, so maybe this has been pointed out earlier.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Tue 24-Aug-2010 18:06
Linus Åkesson
Tue 24-Aug-2010 18:06
Hello lft,
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
Do you also consider the prose example to be enhanced? My point is that enhancing and distracting are two sides of the same coin.
It's one of the basic principles of design, and since you're into typography I kinda expected you to be familiar with this.
On the contrary, a basic rule of thumb of typography is to stick to a single font. SOME people use CAPS to indicate EMPHASIS, thus BREAKING this rule. I find that it makes the text less readable.
I always smile at hardcore coders with black&white screens, who think basic principles of cognitive psychology don't apply to them :)
I'm happy to have made you smile.
Anonymous
Thu 26-Aug-2010 16:13
Thu 26-Aug-2010 16:13
lft wrote:
Hello lft,
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
Syntax highlighting is simply enhancing perceptible information. It redundantly presents essential information (i.e. the code). Syntax highlight does not *add* information, it enhances it.
Do you also consider the prose example to be enhanced? My point is that enhancing and distracting are two sides of the same coin.
The prose is not enhanced because the colors don't enhance essential information. In your example, you emphasize verbs and nouns. These are an important property of linguistics, but it is not essential to recognize these words as nouns, verbs or adjectives to comprehend the story. I have no idea what "type" of words you used in all the sentences of your article, but I understood it perfectly well anyway.
To put it another way: it's not essential to know if the word "was" is a noun or a verb in the sentence "Alice was not a bit hurt", whether it is highlighted or not. But it *is* essential to know that "char" indicates a data type, whether it is highlighted or not.
lft wrote:
It's one of the basic principles of design, and since you're into typography I kinda expected you to be familiar with this.
On the contrary, a basic rule of thumb of typography is to stick to a single font. SOME people use CAPS to indicate EMPHASIS, thus BREAKING this rule. I find that it makes the text less readable.
I think you might have misunderstood my point. Contrast most definitely is one of the basic principles of design. It is brought to code in the form of syntax highlighting through colors, and brought to written language in the form of a change in size, weight, style, spacing or orientation of the typeface.
You use it on your site too: headings and subheading are written with a larger and bolder font, quoted text is encapsulated in a container that separates it from the normal text, links are underlined and have a different color than the normal text.
Your "PEOPLE WHO USE CAPS"-example is simply an example of improper use of emphasis, not a case *against* emphasis. It's like putting green text on a purple background and saying "see, syntax highlighting is evil because this particular example is unreadable!"
lft wrote:
I always smile at hardcore coders with black&white screens, who think basic principles of cognitive psychology don't apply to them :)
I'm happy to have made you smile.
This was not meant to come across as a sneer at you. I enjoyed reading the article, the comments and your reply. I think it's an interesting discussion and I'm simply trying to understand your point of view. To be honest, your rebuttals are not really convincing and often contradictory.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Sun 29-Aug-2010 19:45
Linus Åkesson
Sun 29-Aug-2010 19:45
lft wrote:
Do you also consider the prose example to be enhanced? My point is that enhancing and distracting are two sides of the same coin.The prose is not enhanced because the colors don't enhance essential information. In your example, you emphasize verbs and nouns. These are an important property of linguistics, but it is not essential to recognize these words as nouns, verbs or adjectives to comprehend the story. I have no idea what "type" of words you used in all the sentences of your article, but I understood it perfectly well anyway.
To put it another way: it's not essential to know if the word "was" is a noun or a verb in the sentence "Alice was not a bit hurt", whether it is highlighted or not. But it *is* essential to know that "char" indicates a data type, whether it is highlighted or not.
Oh, but it is quite essential to know what the word "was" means in order to comprehend the sentence. Part of this knowledge is the fact that the word is a verb -- although it's not essential to know that "verb" is the common terminology for this property.
Likewise, it is essential to know that "char" (or, perhaps more to the point, "person" in a piece of software where it has been declared as such) is a type. Without this knowledge, comprehension and ability to modify the code without introducing bugs would be all but impossible.
But this academic grouping has no business being at the front of the mind during programming; the programmer should be as familiar with the fundamental meaning of the word "char" as he is with the word "was". The fact that "was" and "running" have the same colour is uninteresting when reading a text, since they mean different things, and in a similar vein "char" and "person" are two different types, and it makes more sense to think of them as two separate entities in their own right, than as two instances of "type".
...
You use it on your site too: headings and subheading are written with a larger and bolder font, quoted text is encapsulated in a container that separates it from the normal text, links are underlined and have a different color than the normal text.
Your "PEOPLE WHO USE CAPS"-example is simply an example of improper use of emphasis, not a case *against* emphasis. It's like putting green text on a purple background and saying "see, syntax highlighting is evil because this particular example is unreadable!"
You use it on your site too: headings and subheading are written with a larger and bolder font, quoted text is encapsulated in a container that separates it from the normal text, links are underlined and have a different color than the normal text.
Your "PEOPLE WHO USE CAPS"-example is simply an example of improper use of emphasis, not a case *against* emphasis. It's like putting green text on a purple background and saying "see, syntax highlighting is evil because this particular example is unreadable!"
Good point. I see the problems with my example. Nevertheless, I maintain that while some typographic highlighting makes sense (such as indentation and extra whitespace, where it clarifies the intention of the code), automatic highlighting based on syntax is distracting because it emphasizes the shallow syntactic level of the code, rather than the deep semantic level.
This was not meant to come across as a sneer at you.
I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.
Exolon
Oisín
Wed 1-Sep-2010 17:44
Oisín
Wed 1-Sep-2010 17:44
lft wrote:
Using an assembler or compiler would be waaay to 'easy'.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
Like driving a bicycle with training wheels.
A high-level programming language adds power by allowing you to express complex ideas concisely. Training wheels remove power by replacing a hard job with a superficially similar but easier job. It's like taking an acting class in order to become an engineer.
You suggest that it's worse than useless because learners have to "unlearn" things after they graduate to training-wheels-free mode.
But that's not a problem if this unlearning process is quicker than the time saved in learning to ride the bicycle, and I would suggest that it is. When you add some kind of training wheels to a task, it's always a trade-off. The brain is extremely good at adapting and if you can break up one complex learning task into many small ones which are easier to master, humans can and do reassemble those small tasks into the larger performance without undue difficulty.
This is why when learning tough piano pieces, dance moves or martial arts forms, we practice them in small isolated segments before putting the segments together. For example, when learning a piano piece you might practice two bars at a time, hands separately, then together, and then one line at a time and so on. Breaking down the tasks, mastering the individual stages and then composing them back together is often much more efficient than brute-force learning the higher-level skill in a monolithic fashion.
We can use mnemonics and stickers and training wheels to help us build those skills on a more modular scale, and we can still master the high-level skill afterwards.
We can have our cake and eat it too.
Anonymous
Wed 1-Sep-2010 19:39
Wed 1-Sep-2010 19:39
As a not-too-far-offtrack comment: Do Bibles with "The Words of Jesus in Red" add or subtract?
Another thought, having read all the comments (and the article ;): Does the (computer) language being syntax highlighted matter? I find it more helpful for C/C++ and Tex/LaTex, almost useless for eLisp/Lisp/Scheme and Basic.
Another thought, having read all the comments (and the article ;): Does the (computer) language being syntax highlighted matter? I find it more helpful for C/C++ and Tex/LaTex, almost useless for eLisp/Lisp/Scheme and Basic.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 8-Oct-2010 07:05
Linus Åkesson
Fri 8-Oct-2010 07:05
Exolon wrote:
I don't get your argument against training wheels (or coloured stickers on piano keys for beginners).You suggest that it's worse than useless because learners have to "unlearn" things after they graduate to training-wheels-free mode.
But that's not a problem if this unlearning process is quicker than the time saved in learning to ride the bicycle, and I would suggest that it is. When you add some kind of training wheels to a task, it's always a trade-off. The brain is extremely good at adapting and if you can break up one complex learning task into many small ones which are easier to master, humans can and do reassemble those small tasks into the larger performance without undue difficulty.
This is why when learning tough piano pieces, dance moves or martial arts forms, we practice them in small isolated segments before putting the segments together. For example, when learning a piano piece you might practice two bars at a time, hands separately, then together, and then one line at a time and so on. Breaking down the tasks, mastering the individual stages and then composing them back together is often much more efficient than brute-force learning the higher-level skill in a monolithic fashion.
We can use mnemonics and stickers and training wheels to help us build those skills on a more modular scale, and we can still master the high-level skill afterwards.
We can have our cake and eat it too.
I agree completely in the general sense. To learn a complex thing, we must break it down into smaller parts, as the brain is able to reassemble the parts later.
In the case of training wheels, I would argue that the smaller problem (riding a bike with training wheels) is not a part of the larger problem (riding a bike without training wheels), because the child is trained to compensate for imbalance by leaning in the wrong direction.
The risk with stickers on piano keys is that the student picks up an undesired chain of associations. The goal is to be fluent in this mapping: Sheet music -> Idea of what it sounds like -> Knowing how that plays out on the keyboard -> Motor skills. A common, but unfortunate, situation is this: Sheet music -> Knowing how that plays out on the keyboard -> Motor skills -> Idea of what it sounds like. It's very hard to break free from one of these association chains once it has been formed. Colour stickers tend to form a link between (colour annotated) sheet music and knowing how it plays out on the keyboard, so they will aid in forming the wrong association chain.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 8-Oct-2010 07:22
Linus Åkesson
Fri 8-Oct-2010 07:22
As a not-too-far-offtrack comment: Do Bibles with "The Words of Jesus in Red" add or subtract?
Another thought, having read all the comments (and the article ;): Does the (computer) language being syntax highlighted matter? I find it more helpful for C/C++ and Tex/LaTex, almost useless for eLisp/Lisp/Scheme and Basic.
Another thought, having read all the comments (and the article ;): Does the (computer) language being syntax highlighted matter? I find it more helpful for C/C++ and Tex/LaTex, almost useless for eLisp/Lisp/Scheme and Basic.
My opinion is that having one person's lines printed in a different colour would distract the reader from everything else in the book. However, it is not equivalent to syntax highlighting, because it doesn't emphasize information that is already there syntactically. It would be a case of semantic highlighting, and in most cases a completely useless one, although there might be cases where it clarifies who is speaking. The same effect is used by Terry Pratchett in the Discworld novels, where Death speaks in small capital letters.
I don't mind highlighting per se, when used to mark search results or in the output of grep. In the case of ls, it communicates new information (although aesthetically I prefer the suffix style of ls -F).
Regarding different languages, I would say it depends on whether there are any semantics. Markup languages are sometimes used as a tool to describe structure, without any intricate semantics to understand, and in those cases syntax highlighting wouldn't hurt as much. But if the markup language is used to markup proper text, then the semantics of that text needs all the attention it can get.
TeX poses another interesting problem, which is ligatures. Are you aware that the parser treats certain pairs of letters differently than their constituents? "ff", "fl", "--" and several others. From the point of view of the parser, these are clearly a specific kind of syntactic element. Should they be marked in a different colour? Also, in TeX it is possible to change the lexical kind of any character. You can instruct the lexer to treat the letter y as a backslash, and do this for just a part of the file. Such a change can be effected from inside a macro. A proper syntax highlighter would have to keep track of this.
Anonymous
Fri 5-Nov-2010 20:53
Fri 5-Nov-2010 20:53
I may agree with you that most syntax highlighters choose to highlight features that are somewhat uninteresting to the coder, rather than more important elements like '=' vs '==' in c. I would love to see nested parentheses and their contents highlighted in shades that depended on the nesting level, for example.
However, I do disagree strongly on the more general sentiment that syntax highlighting is in itself damaging to comprehension in the long run.
You can train your brain to do a great many things, but to not use the inherent skills of the brain is a waste of "talent" and time. If you can leverage peoples' highly developed visual senses to make the semantics more clear, this, it seems to me, is a rational choice, not a crutch. Again, we can talk about whether common syntax highlighters highlight useful things or not, but the notion that syntax can be aided by visual formatting, including color, is something I believe in.
You can do this via indenting, as everybody does, and/or color choice, as syntax highlighters try to do. I would even go further off the syntax-highlighting deep end and propose using larger fonts for higher-level structural elements like class declarations. As John Carmack said in a recent tweet: "Syntax highlighted code is better than raw text, but still not as good as, say, a typical Wikipedia page. Room for structural formatting."
However, I do disagree strongly on the more general sentiment that syntax highlighting is in itself damaging to comprehension in the long run.
You can train your brain to do a great many things, but to not use the inherent skills of the brain is a waste of "talent" and time. If you can leverage peoples' highly developed visual senses to make the semantics more clear, this, it seems to me, is a rational choice, not a crutch. Again, we can talk about whether common syntax highlighters highlight useful things or not, but the notion that syntax can be aided by visual formatting, including color, is something I believe in.
You can do this via indenting, as everybody does, and/or color choice, as syntax highlighters try to do. I would even go further off the syntax-highlighting deep end and propose using larger fonts for higher-level structural elements like class declarations. As John Carmack said in a recent tweet: "Syntax highlighted code is better than raw text, but still not as good as, say, a typical Wikipedia page. Room for structural formatting."
Anonymous
Wed 8-Dec-2010 17:36
Wed 8-Dec-2010 17:36
A thought-provoking article and interesting read! There is something I'd love to have expanded: why am I "better off without" syntax highlighting if I'm already accustomed to it? I do use syntax highlighting (coding mainly C) and I do agree with you that most of it is a waste of time if you're already comfortable with the language. Having read the article and thinking about it for a minute, it would seem I "use" syntax highlighting for quickly telling apart comments from code, code from macros and allowing me to stay away from accidentally using a reserved keyword (which, as you say, the compiler will probably take care of anyway). But, will I start writing better code if I remove these very simple guides? I doubt it.
I suppose it's like coffee to the regular user: Your own belief in it keeps you coming back for more, even if it doesn't really do much at all.
I suppose it's like coffee to the regular user: Your own belief in it keeps you coming back for more, even if it doesn't really do much at all.
Anonymous
Fri 17-Dec-2010 11:42
Fri 17-Dec-2010 11:42
It's nice watching people discuss this king of subject :)
Over the time, people usually change their acceptance about all things.
Its a natural behaviour of human being.
But, as example, who could image that a player without many feature could make so much sucess just due this "beautiful" interface?
People aim for "nice" looking view of thingsbp
Most of people around the world, aim for things that really don't add anything.
Just fill try to fill the gaps in their own concience(and lack of creativity).
At least, most of us here try to create really nice things.
Hernandi - Br - ff.bpt.c
Over the time, people usually change their acceptance about all things.
Its a natural behaviour of human being.
But, as example, who could image that a player without many feature could make so much sucess just due this "beautiful" interface?
People aim for "nice" looking view of thingsbp
Most of people around the world, aim for things that really don't add anything.
Just fill try to fill the gaps in their own concience(and lack of creativity).
At least, most of us here try to create really nice things.
Hernandi - Br - ff.bpt.c
Anonymous
Mon 20-Dec-2010 02:11
Mon 20-Dec-2010 02:11
Personally, I disagree with this article. Personally I enjoy using Game Maker a lot, and the syntax-highlighting within the program helps me program better. Any language can benefit from it, really; I mainly enjoy it for the fact that you can immediately tell if you might be accidentally naming a variable with the same name as a function or something. Plus it helps me pick out particular sections of code by coloring function names so I can immediately tell where a function is on a long line of code.
Anonymous
Fri 24-Dec-2010 06:18
Fri 24-Dec-2010 06:18
As if capitalizing the first letter of every sentence wasn't syntax highlighting ...
Anonymous
Sun 2-Jan-2011 18:31
Sun 2-Jan-2011 18:31
I find this silly.
Syntax coloring makes code more read-able.
You need to be able to read code before you can even understand the content, and programming languages don't usually read like natural languages, but very differently - your failed attempt at reduction ad absurdum using the exmaple of a fictional, natural language text shows that you don't understand this.
You should observe it in yourself, if you are aware enough of such things, that your brain kind of switches operational modes from reading comments in your source files, and then understanding actual code, from one second to another.
Lots of same-colored text forces you to read source code like natural languages, which makes it quite tiresome - at least compared to how I read source code and probably many others, which works much quicker than text reading, maybe your brain works differently.
Also, through different coloring, I need to type less spaces ^^
Which is probably bad should a color blind person ever read my source code, but then he could engange some auto format features of which there are plenty in many IDEs.
Your using of a pretty weird / bad coloring scheme (I'm not referring to the number of colors used, I guess I use no less) here gives an impression of dishonesty, but maybe that was just exaggeration for fun.
With horror I remember the days of monochrome IDEs in MSDOS. Yuck.
Syntax coloring makes code more read-able.
You need to be able to read code before you can even understand the content, and programming languages don't usually read like natural languages, but very differently - your failed attempt at reduction ad absurdum using the exmaple of a fictional, natural language text shows that you don't understand this.
You should observe it in yourself, if you are aware enough of such things, that your brain kind of switches operational modes from reading comments in your source files, and then understanding actual code, from one second to another.
Lots of same-colored text forces you to read source code like natural languages, which makes it quite tiresome - at least compared to how I read source code and probably many others, which works much quicker than text reading, maybe your brain works differently.
Also, through different coloring, I need to type less spaces ^^
Which is probably bad should a color blind person ever read my source code, but then he could engange some auto format features of which there are plenty in many IDEs.
Your using of a pretty weird / bad coloring scheme (I'm not referring to the number of colors used, I guess I use no less) here gives an impression of dishonesty, but maybe that was just exaggeration for fun.
With horror I remember the days of monochrome IDEs in MSDOS. Yuck.
Anonymous
Wed 6-Apr-2011 20:11
Wed 6-Apr-2011 20:11
In the prose example, White should be green like all the other adjectives. Just saying - being the proofreader I am. http://jcoud.com :)
Anonymous
Sat 4-Jun-2011 23:13
Sat 4-Jun-2011 23:13
Interesting article, on a subject I've also given some thought myself. Haven't read all of the comments, so forgive me if it was already said, but latest advances in semantic highlighting are a valuable aid, especially when dealing with dynamic languages. I've used a semantic highlighter that could catch typos that resulted in undeclared globals that would result in runtime errors later on.
OTOH, one striking memory I have is the first time I came across syntax highlighting: it was when I first saw C code, in Borland's Turbo C environment for MS-DOS. After years programming in BASIC, dBase and Clipper without any special features from editors, my reaction was: "man, the syntax in C is so weird that they need to paint the code!"
OTOH, one striking memory I have is the first time I came across syntax highlighting: it was when I first saw C code, in Borland's Turbo C environment for MS-DOS. After years programming in BASIC, dBase and Clipper without any special features from editors, my reaction was: "man, the syntax in C is so weird that they need to paint the code!"
lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 1-Jul-2011 12:16
Linus Åkesson
Fri 1-Jul-2011 12:16
In the prose example, White should be green like all the other adjectives. Just saying - being the proofreader I am. http://jcoud.com :)
Wow, good catch! While this was a mistake on my part, it's rather striking that it went by undetected for almost four years. Clearly, if the point of syntax highlighting is to make errors stand out, didn't we just witness a rather spectacular failure?
Anonymous
Wed 13-Jul-2011 15:09
Wed 13-Jul-2011 15:09
I haven't read all the comments, but I read a good few.
Firstly, as for your last comment, your syntax highlighting was presumably done manually. Any failure to catch errors if because they were not caught at the time of the highlighting, not because the sentence is syntactically wrong.
Secondly, your argument mostly makes sense, but I think your premises are wrong.
I tend to skim my code to find my place, and I assume every coder does this. It would be monumentally wasteful to read through even a twenty line block just to find that string that you want to change, or the type of the variable you're using, or to give public access to a member, or whatever.
Basic error spotting aside, syntax highlighting functions less for me like your "highlighted fiction", and more like your bolded and/or enlarged headings which assist me in referencing specific parts of the argument without having to retrace the whole thing.
There may be other ways to achieve this goal (eg using headers and spacing, like in prose)
Furthermore, I find that without it, I can more easily go into "autopilot" and skim -- it draws my attention to what's actually happening, on some level, instead of just reading the words. And the defaults in the IDEs I've used are generally toned down enough (even when they're quite bold) that they're not distracting. In code (which is layed out and parsed very differently to prose) I can quite easily read the words while ignoring the colours (except, perhaps, on a semi sub-conscious level where they direct me semantically as well).
That said, the basic argument that form should be subservient to function, I agree. And I always suggest that new programmers do without any sort of IDE or feature-rich text-editting, because I agree that it's important not to need that crutch when starting out.
Firstly, as for your last comment, your syntax highlighting was presumably done manually. Any failure to catch errors if because they were not caught at the time of the highlighting, not because the sentence is syntactically wrong.
Secondly, your argument mostly makes sense, but I think your premises are wrong.
I tend to skim my code to find my place, and I assume every coder does this. It would be monumentally wasteful to read through even a twenty line block just to find that string that you want to change, or the type of the variable you're using, or to give public access to a member, or whatever.
Basic error spotting aside, syntax highlighting functions less for me like your "highlighted fiction", and more like your bolded and/or enlarged headings which assist me in referencing specific parts of the argument without having to retrace the whole thing.
There may be other ways to achieve this goal (eg using headers and spacing, like in prose)
Furthermore, I find that without it, I can more easily go into "autopilot" and skim -- it draws my attention to what's actually happening, on some level, instead of just reading the words. And the defaults in the IDEs I've used are generally toned down enough (even when they're quite bold) that they're not distracting. In code (which is layed out and parsed very differently to prose) I can quite easily read the words while ignoring the colours (except, perhaps, on a semi sub-conscious level where they direct me semantically as well).
That said, the basic argument that form should be subservient to function, I agree. And I always suggest that new programmers do without any sort of IDE or feature-rich text-editting, because I agree that it's important not to need that crutch when starting out.
Anonymous
Wed 3-Aug-2011 15:14
Wed 3-Aug-2011 15:14
Greetz lft!
I agree with you in that syntax highlighting generally slowing down code interpreting, since besides the textual information, the coder's brain have to interpret color information too.
But this is the general case.
As you written in your article, comment blocks are an exceptions, but another exception is string blocks. It is much more easy to find an unterminated string if strings are highlighted.
If colours marks blocks, then you don't have to necessarily interpret textual data, like direct code interpretation, so it is making reading quicker. The slowing down problem only appears when you have to interpret both textual and colour information.
So i think the ideal solution is somewhere between your theory and the eyecandy highlighting:
blocks with different function (code, comment, string) have different colour. I think even different code blocks should have other colors in mixed languaged sources (HTML/JS, C/ASM, PHP/SQL), because if you can narrow down the possible locations of the error, then your brain can orientate more easily, between code blocks, because the visible colour borders and you can concentrate immediately on the block wich holds the problem.
Syntax highlight are not bad in all cases, it is about the way of highlighting, that determines it will accelerate or decelerate reading.
Did not read the posts before me, do not know if someone said this before me.
Like your stuffs! Cheerz! (And sorry for bad english.)
I agree with you in that syntax highlighting generally slowing down code interpreting, since besides the textual information, the coder's brain have to interpret color information too.
But this is the general case.
As you written in your article, comment blocks are an exceptions, but another exception is string blocks. It is much more easy to find an unterminated string if strings are highlighted.
If colours marks blocks, then you don't have to necessarily interpret textual data, like direct code interpretation, so it is making reading quicker. The slowing down problem only appears when you have to interpret both textual and colour information.
So i think the ideal solution is somewhere between your theory and the eyecandy highlighting:
blocks with different function (code, comment, string) have different colour. I think even different code blocks should have other colors in mixed languaged sources (HTML/JS, C/ASM, PHP/SQL), because if you can narrow down the possible locations of the error, then your brain can orientate more easily, between code blocks, because the visible colour borders and you can concentrate immediately on the block wich holds the problem.
Syntax highlight are not bad in all cases, it is about the way of highlighting, that determines it will accelerate or decelerate reading.
Did not read the posts before me, do not know if someone said this before me.
Like your stuffs! Cheerz! (And sorry for bad english.)
Anonymous
Tue 23-Aug-2011 23:25
Tue 23-Aug-2011 23:25
I don't see highlighting as a tool to catch errors when I'm writing code, I've been programming for so many years that syntax errors are not a common problem. When they do occur, I usually understand the problem from the compiler output.
On the other hand I use both highlighting and visible tabs as a way to help me visualize the structure of the code - code as plain text looks “flat” to me.
Whenever I'm reading code, I'm not reading it sequentially from beginning to end; I might be starting on the overall structure, then narrowing in on the interesting part.
I do not like being distracted by non-code so I like comments and strings in different colors that don't stand out. Instead of pulling the attention to the highlighted code you might say that I'm pulling the attention away from uninteresting parts of the code.
If you asked me which colors I use, I wouldn't be able to answer you; I can't remember. I think I use at least three different colorschemes on a regular basis, depending on whether I'm browsing the code in an editor, a repository browser and so on.
Common for them all is that they're non-obtrusive, keeping the black normal text as the part that stands out the most. (Yes, I prefer black text on a light background.)
On the other hand I use both highlighting and visible tabs as a way to help me visualize the structure of the code - code as plain text looks “flat” to me.
Whenever I'm reading code, I'm not reading it sequentially from beginning to end; I might be starting on the overall structure, then narrowing in on the interesting part.
I do not like being distracted by non-code so I like comments and strings in different colors that don't stand out. Instead of pulling the attention to the highlighted code you might say that I'm pulling the attention away from uninteresting parts of the code.
If you asked me which colors I use, I wouldn't be able to answer you; I can't remember. I think I use at least three different colorschemes on a regular basis, depending on whether I'm browsing the code in an editor, a repository browser and so on.
Common for them all is that they're non-obtrusive, keeping the black normal text as the part that stands out the most. (Yes, I prefer black text on a light background.)
Anonymous
Fri 9-Sep-2011 01:03
Fri 9-Sep-2011 01:03
cd
vim .vimrc
syntax on ---> syntax off
<esc> ZZ
edit a C file
It feels much better now.
I never thought about this before, I just used syntax
highlighting without thinking about its negative aspects.
The code is much readable now. I am able to concentrate more
on its content and not on how it looks.
Great article.
Adam.
vim .vimrc
syntax on ---> syntax off
<esc> ZZ
edit a C file
It feels much better now.
I never thought about this before, I just used syntax
highlighting without thinking about its negative aspects.
The code is much readable now. I am able to concentrate more
on its content and not on how it looks.
Great article.
Adam.
wladimir
Wladimir
Sat 8-Oct-2011 19:34
Wladimir
Sat 8-Oct-2011 19:34
Interesting read! I agree with your article in that focusing on syntax is exactly not what you want. The syntax is the least interesting part of the program, so highlighting based on syntax could be counter-productive. It only shows the most superficial information, which is dead easy to parse with your brain.
However it might be more useful to have "semantic highlighting" instead of "syntax highlighting" for understanding. After all, a program is not plain text either. It is a tree data structure, or a computational flow diagram, depending on the level of interpretation. Some ideas for more advanced code visualization:
- style based on variable name; helps distinguish similarly-looking variable names. Maintenance programmers probably agree this could be useful
- style based on variable scope; this exists in some editors. Is a variable scoped to the object, the function or global?
- style based on depth of parse tree; useful for parsing expressions with a lot of parantheses / unclear operator precedence
- style based on inferred type information
- highlight branch paths (with arrows?), unreachable code
- highlight based on test coverage information
Etc...
Ideally an editor would support multiple views according to what the developer is doing (reading code, searching, reviewing correctness).
However it might be more useful to have "semantic highlighting" instead of "syntax highlighting" for understanding. After all, a program is not plain text either. It is a tree data structure, or a computational flow diagram, depending on the level of interpretation. Some ideas for more advanced code visualization:
- style based on variable name; helps distinguish similarly-looking variable names. Maintenance programmers probably agree this could be useful
- style based on variable scope; this exists in some editors. Is a variable scoped to the object, the function or global?
- style based on depth of parse tree; useful for parsing expressions with a lot of parantheses / unclear operator precedence
- style based on inferred type information
- highlight branch paths (with arrows?), unreachable code
- highlight based on test coverage information
Etc...
Ideally an editor would support multiple views according to what the developer is doing (reading code, searching, reviewing correctness).
fusionfile
August Karlstrom
Tue 20-Dec-2011 22:46
August Karlstrom
Tue 20-Dec-2011 22:46
Interesting article and I agree wholeheartedly. My preference is to use different colors only for comments and strings (which are typically the only symbols which can contain whitespace). I also use a variable width sans serif typeface and tabs for indentation. The overall goal is to keep things simple. My observation is that the more "smart" tools we use, the more complicated code we tend to write and this is certainly not a good thing.
Anonymous
Sun 22-Jan-2012 17:39
Sun 22-Jan-2012 17:39
I utterly disagree! Without syntax highlighting, (or more specifically semantics highlighting) in an IDE like eclipse, I am completely useless as a programmer. I absolutely rely on semantics highlighting to avoid simple, stupid errors like variables being out of scope, or misspelling a class name. "Huh, why is this function call not in blue? Oh, I spelled it mian instead of main!" This has saved me a TON of debugging time over the years, as I never have to compile to understand and fix a sytax error, a template error, a misspelling, or a type error, as the semantics highlighting instantly tells me when something's wrong.
This has also allowed me to understand other people's code better. I instantly know what's a macro, what's a typedef, and what's a struct or class. It's allowed me to parse people's differing naming schemes and formatting rules much easier as well.
In my opinion, syntax highlighting and especially semantics highlighting vastly improve productivity. I would prefer it if we got rid of name formatting conventions altogether and just replace them with colors -- easier to parse, easier to understand, and easier to debug!
This has also allowed me to understand other people's code better. I instantly know what's a macro, what's a typedef, and what's a struct or class. It's allowed me to parse people's differing naming schemes and formatting rules much easier as well.
In my opinion, syntax highlighting and especially semantics highlighting vastly improve productivity. I would prefer it if we got rid of name formatting conventions altogether and just replace them with colors -- easier to parse, easier to understand, and easier to debug!
Anonymous
Thu 9-Feb-2012 23:48
Thu 9-Feb-2012 23:48
OTOH, one striking memory I have is the first time I came across syntax highlighting: it was when I first saw C code, in Borland's Turbo C environment for MS-DOS.
Ok, I'm being a total pedant here but it must have Turbo C++. The TC v2.01 I used didn't have highlighting. It had a few bugs though - the most awful of which was implementing fread as a looped fgetc. Two orders of magnitude performance loss (actually about 75x). (TDebug was great). I still have trouble getting myself to use fread() or, thanks to DOS, allocating memory above 64KB.
Back to the point a bit - I think some editors have spent far too much programming effort on their highlighting lexers which could have been spent on useful stuff like ctag support and code outlining.
Anonymous
Sun 4-Mar-2012 19:10
Sun 4-Mar-2012 19:10
I like to think that there are two types of technology: that which extends human abilities and that which replaces them. Extending human abilities is (usually) a good thing. Replacing them, however, is like getting someone else to do things for you because you don't know how to do them rather than learning them yourself. It is basically giving up potential intelligence.
My favorite example is when web browsers try to remember your passwords for you. You are perfectly capable of remembering your own passwords. Then what happens when you switch computers or something happens to your computer? You don't know your password.
The only possible exception to that that I can think of is if you had a very long password and you were trying to be EXTREMELY time efficient. But that seems to be stretching it.
And I definitely think humans are capable of reading and understanding code that does not have syntax coloring. The syntax coloring only replaces the intelligence of dissecting the code that you could have.
That said, I use syntax coloring. I use it mainly because I am to lazy to do the extra effort of detaching myself from it. I don't think lazy is a good thing, but people are lazy nonetheless, and I wouldn't blame anyone who uses syntax coloring. Aside from that, syntax coloring is pretty (to me, anyway) despite being inefficient, and it makes coding the slightest bit more fun.
My favorite example is when web browsers try to remember your passwords for you. You are perfectly capable of remembering your own passwords. Then what happens when you switch computers or something happens to your computer? You don't know your password.
The only possible exception to that that I can think of is if you had a very long password and you were trying to be EXTREMELY time efficient. But that seems to be stretching it.
And I definitely think humans are capable of reading and understanding code that does not have syntax coloring. The syntax coloring only replaces the intelligence of dissecting the code that you could have.
That said, I use syntax coloring. I use it mainly because I am to lazy to do the extra effort of detaching myself from it. I don't think lazy is a good thing, but people are lazy nonetheless, and I wouldn't blame anyone who uses syntax coloring. Aside from that, syntax coloring is pretty (to me, anyway) despite being inefficient, and it makes coding the slightest bit more fun.
Anonymous
Sat 17-Mar-2012 17:53
Sat 17-Mar-2012 17:53
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
I second this argument. Probably the author of the post got his facts wrong. Incidentally, the author has took some pains to point out the real reason behind syntax highlighting, but conveniently labelled them as exceptions. The real reason behind syntax highlighting is to make the structure of the code clear, so that one can understand it better. If the author is using it for eye-candy, it makes one suspicious if they have written any real code at all.
Anonymous
Sat 17-Mar-2012 17:54
Sat 17-Mar-2012 17:54
Code isn't "text". And this blog post has differently sized bold headings, and different colored underlined links. Seems even plain text is helped with a form of syntax highlighting.
Anonymous
Sat 17-Mar-2012 18:55
Sat 17-Mar-2012 18:55
Thanks to the guy who linked to this at HN, I feel dumber for having read it.
Anonymous
Sat 17-Mar-2012 21:34
Sat 17-Mar-2012 21:34
You present your argument against syntax highlighting using 3 key vectors of attack.
1) An analogy to prose text and typography. Arguing what applies to typography, should apply to code as well.
2) An analogy to learning music instruments. Arguing that since you have to to able to read notes anyway, the colors are only temporary. And if they ever change, you're having trouble reading the code.
3) Arguing that syntax highlighting does not help, not even to avoid syntax errors, since that's what compilers are here for.
Rebuttal:
1a) Typography is not a rule like "never do B". It is a contextual form of graphical composition, in which the context determines the set of rules you are going to operate on. For instance, long runs of text with few (if any) structural elements that would attract attention is typically written to be scanned front to back. Mostly that's prose (books, novels etc.). Other forms of writing use different rules, and these may include elements to attract attention to increase typographic legibility (for instance writing for the web http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html).
1b) It is only of limited merit to compare prose writing with source-code and derive meaning from that comparison. The way we read prose and the way we read sourcecode is vastly different. Typographic rules derived from reading prose do not automatically apply to sourcecode.
2) The analogy to learning music instruments and notes is flawed. You're in essence comparing programming to knowing the alphabet. It just does have no relevance whatsoever.
3a) Based on previous flawed conclusion that it doesn't help, you seek to find some merit by comparing it to error checking by a compiler. The descend into that branch of reasoning is flawed because you have not established validity of your first conclusion, and therefore it is arguing that it doesn't help because it doesn't help, i.e. circular reasoning.
3b) Assuming that any merit can be found in error checking for syntax highlighting is mostly flawed (not entirely however).
Counter:
A: You rarely sit down and read sourcecode front to back. Usually you jump around and glance at many things without reading them again, and again and again. In fact, you recognize visual patterns crossing many lines. Syntax highlighting makes those patterns more distinguishable.
B: Changing syntax highlight might be a bit annoying, but it's usually not a problem (that might be very personal)
C: You yourself admit that there is good reason to syntax highlight multiline comments, stating that it helps to avoid trying to parse text that has no bearing. Likewise, some languages support multiline strings, which accidentially would be trick you into parsing them as sourcecode.
D: Single line comments are easier to spot when highlighted as well, preventing you to read them unless you really want to.
E: keywords and other symbols that you cannot redefine in your program (of which there may be many, depending on the language) are helped to be recognized and avoided if they get painted "offensively".
F: most languages have native types. It is usually relevant to be able to glance at sourcecode and recognize weather it operates mostly with native types, or uses its own types.
G: It is generally useful to instantly see where the system code starts and whatever else is supplied by the programmer.
Resolution:
It's possible (although unlikely) that all raised arguments are valid for you (I can't entirely see how that would be the case however). I'm more inclined to think that it's just easier for *you* to read non highlighted code. Maybe you're a very textual person.
I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not a very textual person. I find non highlighted code extremely tedious to read. I've spent at some parts in my life extensive periods of time in such situations, and they where very painful. Aparts from the benefits that I do derive from syntax highlighting, I do other things to my text environment however that others find abominable (like putting it transparently over a pleasing background).
Conclusion:
Speak for yourself, syntax highlighting is good for me, maybe not for you, but good for me.
1) An analogy to prose text and typography. Arguing what applies to typography, should apply to code as well.
2) An analogy to learning music instruments. Arguing that since you have to to able to read notes anyway, the colors are only temporary. And if they ever change, you're having trouble reading the code.
3) Arguing that syntax highlighting does not help, not even to avoid syntax errors, since that's what compilers are here for.
Rebuttal:
1a) Typography is not a rule like "never do B". It is a contextual form of graphical composition, in which the context determines the set of rules you are going to operate on. For instance, long runs of text with few (if any) structural elements that would attract attention is typically written to be scanned front to back. Mostly that's prose (books, novels etc.). Other forms of writing use different rules, and these may include elements to attract attention to increase typographic legibility (for instance writing for the web http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html).
1b) It is only of limited merit to compare prose writing with source-code and derive meaning from that comparison. The way we read prose and the way we read sourcecode is vastly different. Typographic rules derived from reading prose do not automatically apply to sourcecode.
2) The analogy to learning music instruments and notes is flawed. You're in essence comparing programming to knowing the alphabet. It just does have no relevance whatsoever.
3a) Based on previous flawed conclusion that it doesn't help, you seek to find some merit by comparing it to error checking by a compiler. The descend into that branch of reasoning is flawed because you have not established validity of your first conclusion, and therefore it is arguing that it doesn't help because it doesn't help, i.e. circular reasoning.
3b) Assuming that any merit can be found in error checking for syntax highlighting is mostly flawed (not entirely however).
Counter:
A: You rarely sit down and read sourcecode front to back. Usually you jump around and glance at many things without reading them again, and again and again. In fact, you recognize visual patterns crossing many lines. Syntax highlighting makes those patterns more distinguishable.
B: Changing syntax highlight might be a bit annoying, but it's usually not a problem (that might be very personal)
C: You yourself admit that there is good reason to syntax highlight multiline comments, stating that it helps to avoid trying to parse text that has no bearing. Likewise, some languages support multiline strings, which accidentially would be trick you into parsing them as sourcecode.
D: Single line comments are easier to spot when highlighted as well, preventing you to read them unless you really want to.
E: keywords and other symbols that you cannot redefine in your program (of which there may be many, depending on the language) are helped to be recognized and avoided if they get painted "offensively".
F: most languages have native types. It is usually relevant to be able to glance at sourcecode and recognize weather it operates mostly with native types, or uses its own types.
G: It is generally useful to instantly see where the system code starts and whatever else is supplied by the programmer.
Resolution:
It's possible (although unlikely) that all raised arguments are valid for you (I can't entirely see how that would be the case however). I'm more inclined to think that it's just easier for *you* to read non highlighted code. Maybe you're a very textual person.
I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not a very textual person. I find non highlighted code extremely tedious to read. I've spent at some parts in my life extensive periods of time in such situations, and they where very painful. Aparts from the benefits that I do derive from syntax highlighting, I do other things to my text environment however that others find abominable (like putting it transparently over a pleasing background).
Conclusion:
Speak for yourself, syntax highlighting is good for me, maybe not for you, but good for me.
Anonymous
Sun 18-Mar-2012 02:26
Sun 18-Mar-2012 02:26
Be a typography geek all you want, but trying to quickly navigate code is nothing like reading a block of text, so you can't use numbers and studies based on reading English (or any other language) to make judgments about reading code. Syntax highlighting coupled with the indentation used for code it makes it really easy to skim over code and recognize what's going on instead of it looking like a big wall of text. Yes, skimming is important and it's a normal thing to do when you're just looking for a single section where you expect the bug is going to be.
If you don't like syntax highlighting, then don't use it, but don't try to rationalize it with a bunch of information that doesn't apply, and arguments that include saying that skimming code is bad, when in many situations it is the proper way to work. You shouldn't have to read and "understand" and entire class to just modify it or fix a bug in it, sure it's preferred but it's a little bit overkill and honestly, a waste of developer hours.
If you don't like syntax highlighting, then don't use it, but don't try to rationalize it with a bunch of information that doesn't apply, and arguments that include saying that skimming code is bad, when in many situations it is the proper way to work. You shouldn't have to read and "understand" and entire class to just modify it or fix a bug in it, sure it's preferred but it's a little bit overkill and honestly, a waste of developer hours.
Anonymous
Mon 26-Mar-2012 05:47
Mon 26-Mar-2012 05:47
I don't blame you for hating the colors that you've shown here. They're a hideous rainbow of confusion.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
x = Thinger.Convert(y);
Is Thinger a class with a static Convert function? Or is it a property member of the class that this code lives in? With Visual Studio you will know because if it's a class it'll be Aqua colored and if it's a property that returns a class object, it'll just be black (by the default color scheme).
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
I use VS at work all the time, but you're actually missing the point here with this particular case.
This confusion can and should be solved by a combination of good naming conventions (I must admit I seriously question the choice of conventions MS used for C#.) and ensuring that you qualify everything except local variables (with "this" for instance members and a class name for static members). Frankly, I don't know why languages allow you to access members without qualifying them. It only leads to problems (like shadowing).
So the case you're describing does not demonstrate the useful of syntax highlighting. Rather, it demonstrates that syntax highlighting is a work around for dealing with a bad practice/language feature. What you've shown is that syntax highlighting makes it easier for us to deal with bad code and thereby encourages it, which is part of the point here.
Anonymous
Tue 10-Apr-2012 21:18
Tue 10-Apr-2012 21:18
Syntax highlighting is indeed unnecessary, but I think it's helpful. I know that illustration of highlighted English text was meant to be amusing, but it'd suffice to say that the main reason color is distracting in that case is because of annoying colors and untrained eyes. To complement this, if you read Wikipedia often, I doubt you'll be very distracted by inline links or superscript.
However, when I read the C example up top, I plowed through the whole thing in a few seconds. Not much different without syntax highlighting, except for the additional guidance, at whatever value.
I also would stand by refactoring tools and intellisense. If you're writing good code, you definitely do not need them. However, I don't think productivity tools hurt but rather save time when used properly. I can see a possibility for people to accidentally begin relying on these things, but for me it just never happened; I can still code fast without any syntax highlighting or productivity tools. Sometimes it's easier that way.
However, when I read the C example up top, I plowed through the whole thing in a few seconds. Not much different without syntax highlighting, except for the additional guidance, at whatever value.
I also would stand by refactoring tools and intellisense. If you're writing good code, you definitely do not need them. However, I don't think productivity tools hurt but rather save time when used properly. I can see a possibility for people to accidentally begin relying on these things, but for me it just never happened; I can still code fast without any syntax highlighting or productivity tools. Sometimes it's easier that way.
Anonymous
Tue 15-May-2012 19:03
Tue 15-May-2012 19:03
so a couple of months ago i came across this article, and it helped me realize i was too preoccupied with using the right font and syntax colour scheme in order to understand code better, and even with all that effort, i was still struggling. in a final bid to 'get better' at coding i began to indent and format my code heavily, and comment practically every block of code.
now however, i see things much better, i find it much easier to understand code and went from only being able to write small javascript applications while keeping a reference handy, to working on much bigger and complex projects and even assembler.
so great article in my case :-)
now however, i see things much better, i find it much easier to understand code and went from only being able to write small javascript applications while keeping a reference handy, to working on much bigger and complex projects and even assembler.
so great article in my case :-)
Anonymous
Tue 29-May-2012 17:48
Tue 29-May-2012 17:48
I really think this is a pure opinion debate. You know, like "do you prefer girls with or without makeup ?". Some guys prefer girls with makeup, some others without. It's simple as that ;)
If you want by the way my profound opinion, I'm pro syntax highlighting. But for me it's not at all a "beginner" or "easy learning" stuff, but all the opposite. It's in the range of advanced "productivity tools". I explain a bit : as said by several earlier comments, programming isn't an easy thing. It's necessary to invest time and efforts to master this skill. And such a complex thing must not be learned with the tricks that makes it easier first.
A good approach to basic programming is to use no heavy dedicated studio, but rather have only your compiler and a basic text editor. This way of learning kinda force you to make some very basic errors (syntax) and correct them manually, and force you to understand the workflow of coding -> compiling -> linking -> executing (or whatever, depending on your fav language). I truly think that the best knowledge comes through error : if you make errors, you're able to correct them. And more than that, it creates a massive memory impact, enabling you to prevent further errors better.
So, after working in such a crude manner for some time, you will just be delighted when upgrading to something more user friendly. And you'll discover that some features will simply leverage on your root comprehension to achieve quick and effective result. To stick on syntax highlighting, I simply think it's a cool navigation system to rapidly browse the code, but that's far from the most powerful feature IDEs have to offer. All this hides a real problem, by the way, because it's very common to meet programmers who totally rely on their favorite IDE and are unable to do something outside the vendor's defined scope. That's the true danger : give much power to people that don't understand it...
And to come back on the "training wheels", I would say that you must not learn cycling with them and then re-learn without. But rather you must learn first without training wheels, and when mastered, THEN use them. And you'll be able to do real cool things with your bike that nobody have ever done ! But there I feel the comparison is maybe not so good ;)
As a conclusion, I'd just say that I found the Alice in Wonderland example very cool, but not so much convincing. The syntax of a spoken language is so far from a computer language, and the subset of keywords in the later is so thin, compared to any subset of words in a spoken language (verbs, nouns, or whatever you choose)... So to me it actually makes sense to highlight keywords in code, but absolutely not verbs in Alice. But highlighting dialogs seems to be a cool option. Yeah, I know... semantics ;)
If you want by the way my profound opinion, I'm pro syntax highlighting. But for me it's not at all a "beginner" or "easy learning" stuff, but all the opposite. It's in the range of advanced "productivity tools". I explain a bit : as said by several earlier comments, programming isn't an easy thing. It's necessary to invest time and efforts to master this skill. And such a complex thing must not be learned with the tricks that makes it easier first.
A good approach to basic programming is to use no heavy dedicated studio, but rather have only your compiler and a basic text editor. This way of learning kinda force you to make some very basic errors (syntax) and correct them manually, and force you to understand the workflow of coding -> compiling -> linking -> executing (or whatever, depending on your fav language). I truly think that the best knowledge comes through error : if you make errors, you're able to correct them. And more than that, it creates a massive memory impact, enabling you to prevent further errors better.
So, after working in such a crude manner for some time, you will just be delighted when upgrading to something more user friendly. And you'll discover that some features will simply leverage on your root comprehension to achieve quick and effective result. To stick on syntax highlighting, I simply think it's a cool navigation system to rapidly browse the code, but that's far from the most powerful feature IDEs have to offer. All this hides a real problem, by the way, because it's very common to meet programmers who totally rely on their favorite IDE and are unable to do something outside the vendor's defined scope. That's the true danger : give much power to people that don't understand it...
And to come back on the "training wheels", I would say that you must not learn cycling with them and then re-learn without. But rather you must learn first without training wheels, and when mastered, THEN use them. And you'll be able to do real cool things with your bike that nobody have ever done ! But there I feel the comparison is maybe not so good ;)
As a conclusion, I'd just say that I found the Alice in Wonderland example very cool, but not so much convincing. The syntax of a spoken language is so far from a computer language, and the subset of keywords in the later is so thin, compared to any subset of words in a spoken language (verbs, nouns, or whatever you choose)... So to me it actually makes sense to highlight keywords in code, but absolutely not verbs in Alice. But highlighting dialogs seems to be a cool option. Yeah, I know... semantics ;)
Anonymous
Tue 5-Jun-2012 05:02
Tue 5-Jun-2012 05:02
In "C", highlighting the braces {} can help when you are looking at someone elses code. Depending on what I'm doing, it would be nice to have some buttons on the editor to quickly enable/disable highlighting various things. I sure wouldn't want everything thing possible turned on and have a rainbow of colors...because it would makes things far worse!!!
Anonymous
Tue 5-Jun-2012 14:07
Tue 5-Jun-2012 14:07
Syntax highlighting is eye candy, that's why I like it.
Every so often I end up in an environment without it, reading the same old languages that I always do. I am no longer surprised at how monochrome code is just as easy to read as colourful code.
It is however less colourful, which is why whenever I find that VIM syntax highighting is broken, I fix it as quick as possible.
Every so often I end up in an environment without it, reading the same old languages that I always do. I am no longer surprised at how monochrome code is just as easy to read as colourful code.
It is however less colourful, which is why whenever I find that VIM syntax highighting is broken, I fix it as quick as possible.
Anonymous
Wed 13-Jun-2012 23:54
Wed 13-Jun-2012 23:54
Wow, this is a long-lived thread.
I'm not sure who invented it, but the first paper on colour syntax highlighting I can find is here:
Van Laar, D. (1989). Evaluating a Colour Coding Programming Support
Tool. People and Computers V. A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BTxOtt4X920C&oi=fnd&pg=PA217&dq=Evaluating+a+Colour+Coding+Programming+Support++Tool&ots=ODnn6tq2Tj&sig=JSnePqXWhUNDQPzzpNWlB91p_s8#v=onepage&q=Evaluating%20a%20Colour%20Coding%20Programming%20Support%20%20Tool&f=false
The paper showed that when colour coded syntax was applied it led to faster completion of tasks which involved visually scanning code.
I'm not sure who invented it, but the first paper on colour syntax highlighting I can find is here:
Van Laar, D. (1989). Evaluating a Colour Coding Programming Support
Tool. People and Computers V. A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BTxOtt4X920C&oi=fnd&pg=PA217&dq=Evaluating+a+Colour+Coding+Programming+Support++Tool&ots=ODnn6tq2Tj&sig=JSnePqXWhUNDQPzzpNWlB91p_s8#v=onepage&q=Evaluating%20a%20Colour%20Coding%20Programming%20Support%20%20Tool&f=false
The paper showed that when colour coded syntax was applied it led to faster completion of tasks which involved visually scanning code.
Anonymous
Wed 8-Aug-2012 01:02
Wed 8-Aug-2012 01:02
I find syntax highlight usually disturb me, especially when i am tired. Yesterday, i removed all colors except comment. I want to konw how other people do, then I found your article.
Good writing! Thank you!
--Wang Lei
Good writing! Thank you!
--Wang Lei
Anonymous
Wed 17-Oct-2012 12:48
Wed 17-Oct-2012 12:48
If only more coders would care more about their code. Sometimes simplifying your environment is all you need. Just to quote Brian Kernighan "The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements."
People would be just as annoyed if this was a post about debuggers versus print statements.
I've come across your article because I was pondering on the same ideas and I just did a google search. Nice article.
People would be just as annoyed if this was a post about debuggers versus print statements.
I've come across your article because I was pondering on the same ideas and I just did a google search. Nice article.
Anonymous
Sat 20-Oct-2012 22:37
Sat 20-Oct-2012 22:37
being a dyslexic syntax highlighting is one of the best tings that have happened to me, if anything i need way more
Anonymous
Sat 2-Feb-2013 20:20
Sat 2-Feb-2013 20:20
youknowspacesaredistractingwemightaswellremovethemfromourproselanguageaswellwhybotherwiththembeingabletoparsetheindividualwordsisn'tasimportantasunderstandingthesentancesandparagraphsasawhole
Anonymous
Mon 11-Feb-2013 01:03
Mon 11-Feb-2013 01:03
I have an idea. Text editors should not highlight anything but comments and _incorrect_ syntax. This way we are distracted towards the error, to fix it, else we focus in the code at the semantic level.
What do you think about that?
Cheers,
Sam.
What do you think about that?
Cheers,
Sam.
Anonymous
Sat 6-Apr-2013 20:39
Sat 6-Apr-2013 20:39
Well, that was a lot of talking. After reading everyone's opinions, I've came out with my own. I utilized other thoughts, and here is the result:
If you would apply your logic to everything (syntax highlighting is like training wheels for the bicycle: when you get rid of them, you will get pulled out of the 'comfort zone' and would be forced to relearn again a.k.a use more time in a long run) you will end up living like a caveman. Why? Because electricity is basically the same thing: without it, some people wouldn't live that long and therefore it should not be used at all. For me, it is not the way to go. We, humans, do such things like automation and all that by understanding it must not be applied to EVERYTHING. At least because in some cases it would use up more time. But the main reason, which applies to almost everything invented, that explains why (insert any invention here) is invented at all, is time. This would be the only thing we can't manipulate with / would be able to manipulate in ∞ years. As the saying goes, time is money. And sometimes, you can make more money by using less time. It's like gambling.
In conclusion, use syntax highlighting for your own risk, by understanding the fact, there will be a day when it suddenly disappears...
If you would apply your logic to everything (syntax highlighting is like training wheels for the bicycle: when you get rid of them, you will get pulled out of the 'comfort zone' and would be forced to relearn again a.k.a use more time in a long run) you will end up living like a caveman. Why? Because electricity is basically the same thing: without it, some people wouldn't live that long and therefore it should not be used at all. For me, it is not the way to go. We, humans, do such things like automation and all that by understanding it must not be applied to EVERYTHING. At least because in some cases it would use up more time. But the main reason, which applies to almost everything invented, that explains why (insert any invention here) is invented at all, is time. This would be the only thing we can't manipulate with / would be able to manipulate in ∞ years. As the saying goes, time is money. And sometimes, you can make more money by using less time. It's like gambling.
In conclusion, use syntax highlighting for your own risk, by understanding the fact, there will be a day when it suddenly disappears...
HoltomS
Stephen Holtom
Fri 17-May-2013 11:40
Stephen Holtom
Fri 17-May-2013 11:40
In addition to the points mentioned above, I'd like to point out that some skimming is *good*.
For example, say a string literal is being passed in a function call. In essence, there are two bits of information for a programmer to be aware of:
1. A string literal is being passed
2. The contents of the string
Now, it is *right* that those things can be considered separately. It's right that I can saccade past the contents of the string if right now I'm not interested in that argument, and need to examine another argument to the function more closely.
It is wrong to be forced every time to track my eyes across carefully, and find the closing quote, before I can look at the next argument to the function. These little inefficiencies add up.
The analogy with a novel is false. A novel must be read in a linear fashion. For most modern code paradigms it's not even clear what linear would mean (a source file, a stack trace, an inheritance hierarchy?). Furthermore the English language does not have the same kind of formal syntactic structures as code: function calls, literals, operators, macros etc are not merely different kinds of words.
For example, say a string literal is being passed in a function call. In essence, there are two bits of information for a programmer to be aware of:
1. A string literal is being passed
2. The contents of the string
Now, it is *right* that those things can be considered separately. It's right that I can saccade past the contents of the string if right now I'm not interested in that argument, and need to examine another argument to the function more closely.
It is wrong to be forced every time to track my eyes across carefully, and find the closing quote, before I can look at the next argument to the function. These little inefficiencies add up.
The analogy with a novel is false. A novel must be read in a linear fashion. For most modern code paradigms it's not even clear what linear would mean (a source file, a stack trace, an inheritance hierarchy?). Furthermore the English language does not have the same kind of formal syntactic structures as code: function calls, literals, operators, macros etc are not merely different kinds of words.
HoltomS
Stephen Holtom
Mon 27-May-2013 05:11
Stephen Holtom
Mon 27-May-2013 05:11
It also occurs to me that you've had a bit of a free pass with the "seeing the woods for the trees" comment. It's the kind of statement that seems intuitively right, and most programmers at first glance would consider it to be important.
But on reflection, I don't believe it is important, or even correct.
For any sufficiently complex program, abstraction is incredibly important.
When I'm writing a class I should be concerned with just what that particular class does. And in terms of calling other classes, it should be safe to forget how they internally work. If I can't do this then this implies poor design and a creaky system. And needless to say, there should not be global variables, or shared states. I should be able to focus on a single method at a time because everything is so neatly encapsulated.
So being able to work at the "trees" level is actually an ideal.
Now I'm sure you'll say that what you mean is the big picture: an awareness of what the whole shebang is doing, and is for.
But again, for sufficiently complex programs that level is far above the level of actually looking at source code. Understanding the big picture, and your preferences for displaying code, are very far removed.
But on reflection, I don't believe it is important, or even correct.
For any sufficiently complex program, abstraction is incredibly important.
When I'm writing a class I should be concerned with just what that particular class does. And in terms of calling other classes, it should be safe to forget how they internally work. If I can't do this then this implies poor design and a creaky system. And needless to say, there should not be global variables, or shared states. I should be able to focus on a single method at a time because everything is so neatly encapsulated.
So being able to work at the "trees" level is actually an ideal.
Now I'm sure you'll say that what you mean is the big picture: an awareness of what the whole shebang is doing, and is for.
But again, for sufficiently complex programs that level is far above the level of actually looking at source code. Understanding the big picture, and your preferences for displaying code, are very far removed.
Anonymous
Wed 10-Jul-2013 17:20
Wed 10-Jul-2013 17:20
The language Esperanto is easy for beginners to understand partly because of its "syntax highlighting": all nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs have their respective word-endings that make them consistent. One can read a text and pick out all the nouns by form alone.
So no, it's not crazy for natural languages to do this.
So no, it's not crazy for natural languages to do this.
Anonymous
Wed 7-Aug-2013 22:17
Wed 7-Aug-2013 22:17
damn books, people had such better memories before them. My say: it's always better to have an option than not to have one
Anonymous
Sun 25-Aug-2013 23:00
Sun 25-Aug-2013 23:00
Well, I don't use syntax highlighting anyways.
Anonymous
Wed 2-Oct-2013 12:16
Wed 2-Oct-2013 12:16
Interesting point of view.
I would generally say that syntax highlighting is not evil :)
I agree that some schemes don't actually work or make the programming eye lazy or cluttered!
The broken learning curve example with the wheel I believe is a loose generalisation.
Actually colored-syntax (there is another case of post formatted code {bold, italic,...}) is
a fast way of getting a top-view of your code's symmetry and beauty... after all programming is
also an art in constant progression :)
As for the the security holes and logical errors or bug-solving, in my personal and humble, if you may, opinion is that syntax highlighting has no actual impact.
Software quality is at most cases achieved by constant redesign and code review.
Yet, I agree with you totally that syntax highlighting should be investigated further because
it could actually play even a greater role in program creation if addressed correctly...
... and maybe ... using syntax-highlighting IS a part of the programmers learning curve (which never ends) to the path of no-syntax-highlighting at all.
Congrats for the article and thanks for your constructive critisism :0
I would generally say that syntax highlighting is not evil :)
I agree that some schemes don't actually work or make the programming eye lazy or cluttered!
The broken learning curve example with the wheel I believe is a loose generalisation.
Actually colored-syntax (there is another case of post formatted code {bold, italic,...}) is
a fast way of getting a top-view of your code's symmetry and beauty... after all programming is
also an art in constant progression :)
As for the the security holes and logical errors or bug-solving, in my personal and humble, if you may, opinion is that syntax highlighting has no actual impact.
Software quality is at most cases achieved by constant redesign and code review.
Yet, I agree with you totally that syntax highlighting should be investigated further because
it could actually play even a greater role in program creation if addressed correctly...
... and maybe ... using syntax-highlighting IS a part of the programmers learning curve (which never ends) to the path of no-syntax-highlighting at all.
Congrats for the article and thanks for your constructive critisism :0
Anonymous
Sat 16-Nov-2013 20:57
Sat 16-Nov-2013 20:57
stuypidest shit I've ever read
Anonymous
Fri 22-Nov-2013 19:01
Fri 22-Nov-2013 19:01
cool - an articel written in 2007 still actively receives comments - congrats! :-)
Anonymous
Sun 1-Dec-2013 18:25
Sun 1-Dec-2013 18:25
Two comments - firstly I have seen English written coloured, in a class with dyslexics the words would often be written coloured and referred to as "green words" and "blue words". That was many years ago now (I'm nearly 40) and I reckon the people concerned still think of the words by colour instead of their actual function in English.
Secondly - a very real use for syntax highlighting - being a dope and forgetting to close quotes in strings. It can be easy to do and hard to see if your code is "contrived example\" (the \ should be \n) but with coloured code, the fact that a lot of stuff that shouldn't be a string IS would be an instant giveaway.
As for your "=" vs "==" problem, any useful compiler ought to throw a warning if it spots a "=" where a "==" is expected, like in if statements. Likewise you ought to get a warning (like "comparison with no effect") if you use "==" when an assignment would have been expected. After all, this==that; doesn't result in anything sensible, logically it will either be true or false. What is that expressed in code? Your compiler ought to tell you about this.
Secondly - a very real use for syntax highlighting - being a dope and forgetting to close quotes in strings. It can be easy to do and hard to see if your code is "contrived example\" (the \ should be \n) but with coloured code, the fact that a lot of stuff that shouldn't be a string IS would be an instant giveaway.
As for your "=" vs "==" problem, any useful compiler ought to throw a warning if it spots a "=" where a "==" is expected, like in if statements. Likewise you ought to get a warning (like "comparison with no effect") if you use "==" when an assignment would have been expected. After all, this==that; doesn't result in anything sensible, logically it will either be true or false. What is that expressed in code? Your compiler ought to tell you about this.
Anonymous
Tue 14-Jan-2014 22:25
Tue 14-Jan-2014 22:25
If I was highlighting music with colours, perhaps I would consider colouring repeat signs, tempo and phrasing markings, accents and section breaks. Colouring each note differently would be like colouring an int differently than a string. We don't do that in most code highlighting schemes. In the past in my music studies I would colour sections of music with the same theme in the same colour in order to aid memory, while that is different than the highlighting of code, there is indeed a valid use for highlighting in music. Also sometimes I will highlight the tonic of a scale to show it is special for my student's learning.
Anonymous
Mon 27-Jan-2014 13:36
Mon 27-Jan-2014 13:36
Wow, I can't believe a programmer actually wrote this article.
Anyway, both syntax highlighting and indentation are what's called *secondary notation* in programming. Research has shown many times that well chosen secondary notation helps with program comprehension. In some cases (like indentation) the benefits are huge.
Anyway, both syntax highlighting and indentation are what's called *secondary notation* in programming. Research has shown many times that well chosen secondary notation helps with program comprehension. In some cases (like indentation) the benefits are huge.
Anonymous
Thu 30-Jan-2014 12:02
Thu 30-Jan-2014 12:02
Exactly my thoughts since the day I stumbled upon the first editor with syntax highlighting -- the first thing I did was turn it off, and I do it ever since. When I see a screen of code with a distracting mix of awful colors, I can't understand a single line of it.
And I agree on the exceptions too, mostly. My own IDE has exactly two cases for syntax highlighting: Comments and strings.
Apart from that, too bad that "Swedish law applies" to my comment. I may not even touch women in that case ;-)
And I agree on the exceptions too, mostly. My own IDE has exactly two cases for syntax highlighting: Comments and strings.
Apart from that, too bad that "Swedish law applies" to my comment. I may not even touch women in that case ;-)
Anonymous
Sun 4-May-2014 00:03
Sun 4-May-2014 00:03
I have written a terminal emulator for my own use and one of its features is that it ignores requests to change colours. So my terminal shows nice, consistent text no matter what the programs I run think the colours should be. It does, however, support bold and underlined text as I find those are less often abused and are less distracting.
Another point that came to mind about syntax highlighting in particular is that I use different programming languages and I look at diffs and grep output, for example, and other variants of texts. It would be silly to try and find consistent colouring rules for all the ways I have of interpreting text.
Another point that came to mind about syntax highlighting in particular is that I use different programming languages and I look at diffs and grep output, for example, and other variants of texts. It would be silly to try and find consistent colouring rules for all the ways I have of interpreting text.
Anonymous
Sat 10-May-2014 13:38
Sat 10-May-2014 13:38
Sorry, but I disagree. It's a real productivity booster (personal preference: Emacs).
WRT training wheels, I might just as well put up an argument against use of power tools.
WRT training wheels, I might just as well put up an argument against use of power tools.
Anonymous
Sun 11-May-2014 19:15
Sun 11-May-2014 19:15
Rather than comparing syntax-highlighted code to syntax-highlighted English prose, it would make more sense to compare it to a syntax-highlighted set of step-by-step instructions. I've seen many instruction manuals that highlight the verbs and/or key nouns in each step.
radiantx
Martin Evald
Sun 18-May-2014 16:31
Martin Evald
Sun 18-May-2014 16:31
What about semantic highlighting? https://medium.com/programming-ideas-tutorial-and-experience/3a6db2743a1e
Anonymous
Thu 12-Jun-2014 18:49
Thu 12-Jun-2014 18:49
You must be an academic and not a practical programmer.
Typography doesn't mean shit in this case. Typography wasn't meant for this level of abstraction.
Using your logic, one could also argue that mathematics should only be written in certain font-types. Otherwise it just wouldnt be that good, or something. Or that the matematichian couldn't understand his work, because the font is different.
For example Coda2 on MACs doen't highlight the end tag(or bracket), if you have focus on the start tag(or bracket). Notepad++ on Windows does this. Try doing HTML/error validation without that feature. You'll be wasting your time together with the clients money. Simple as that.
Some people can build a program in 20 hours, and other can do it in 1 hour. You're the 20 hour guy. Nobody is gonna pay for that shit... It's hobby-level, not pro.
In the real world, you're not gonna get to play an academic, and use hours upon hours on a project, writing reports and analyze every bit. Not gonna happen in the private market. That's incidentally why 50% of academics work for the government... Just not practical enough for a private business, where the real work gets done.
Your conclusion is wrong. Syntax highlighting does the exact same thing you says it doesn't do. It makes you focus on the important stuff... Getting payed by a happy customer.
No customer is happy paying some freak to spend 5 times the hours, than others.
This entire article is bullshit.
Stop going to school and do some goddamn work instead! Nobody is gonna pay you for this shit.
Typography doesn't mean shit in this case. Typography wasn't meant for this level of abstraction.
Using your logic, one could also argue that mathematics should only be written in certain font-types. Otherwise it just wouldnt be that good, or something. Or that the matematichian couldn't understand his work, because the font is different.
For example Coda2 on MACs doen't highlight the end tag(or bracket), if you have focus on the start tag(or bracket). Notepad++ on Windows does this. Try doing HTML/error validation without that feature. You'll be wasting your time together with the clients money. Simple as that.
Some people can build a program in 20 hours, and other can do it in 1 hour. You're the 20 hour guy. Nobody is gonna pay for that shit... It's hobby-level, not pro.
In the real world, you're not gonna get to play an academic, and use hours upon hours on a project, writing reports and analyze every bit. Not gonna happen in the private market. That's incidentally why 50% of academics work for the government... Just not practical enough for a private business, where the real work gets done.
Your conclusion is wrong. Syntax highlighting does the exact same thing you says it doesn't do. It makes you focus on the important stuff... Getting payed by a happy customer.
No customer is happy paying some freak to spend 5 times the hours, than others.
This entire article is bullshit.
Stop going to school and do some goddamn work instead! Nobody is gonna pay you for this shit.
Anonymous
Thu 12-Jun-2014 19:07
Thu 12-Jun-2014 19:07
Using the argument that "syntax highlighting confuses you", makes me absolutely certain,that your brain works one or several levels below other programmers, who don't get confused by colors on the screen.
Get a job, and stop waisting all your evenings perfecting syntax.
I work as a programmer, and what I read in this article, defies absolutely everything i know about being fast. It's like argumenting against autocomplete functionality, because it might encourage youth not to learn language or grammar.
You should be a politician and not a programmer.
I used to work as a carpenter... Same thing there. Customers don't care about how well you know how carve wood, or if you can do sculptures...They care about what you build, how fast, and what it will cost them.
Your arguments violate all of this. You sound you cost a lot, just by thinking about obvious stuff.
Get a job, and stop waisting all your evenings perfecting syntax.
I work as a programmer, and what I read in this article, defies absolutely everything i know about being fast. It's like argumenting against autocomplete functionality, because it might encourage youth not to learn language or grammar.
You should be a politician and not a programmer.
I used to work as a carpenter... Same thing there. Customers don't care about how well you know how carve wood, or if you can do sculptures...They care about what you build, how fast, and what it will cost them.
Your arguments violate all of this. You sound you cost a lot, just by thinking about obvious stuff.
Anonymous
Thu 12-Jun-2014 19:13
Thu 12-Jun-2014 19:13
It's like arguing that all text should be handwritten, or we wouldn't understand how characters work...
This article gets my piss boyiling, because it's just so wrong, in every practical level.
This article gets my piss boyiling, because it's just so wrong, in every practical level.
Anonymous
Wed 2-Jul-2014 18:05
Wed 2-Jul-2014 18:05
I chanced upon this article while searching for *scientific* studies about the pros and cons of syntax highlighting. I didn't find such studies, but kudos for raising the topic! It is true that Linus does not back up his claims by experiments, like a speed reading test. But, amusingly, his most vocal critics here seem unaware that they too must back up their claims with figures instead of gut feelings. I think this topic deserves a methodical study. I'd surely love to see figures how much syntax highlighting helps or distracts depending on the circumstances.
Anonymous
Wed 2-Jul-2014 18:16
Wed 2-Jul-2014 18:16
Ha, I just found a scientific study about this:
http://www.ppig.org/papers/18th-hakala.pdf.
Here is a key part of the conclusion (page 51):
"A suprising finding was that the control scheme, black text on white background, resulted in the same overall search performance as the other coloring schemes.
...
The participants' overall comments on color usage were positive and they reported of perceived performance improvement. However, the results of the experiment do not support his intuition."
This makes the "this blog article is bullshit" comments above look quite amusing indeed.
http://www.ppig.org/papers/18th-hakala.pdf.
Here is a key part of the conclusion (page 51):
"A suprising finding was that the control scheme, black text on white background, resulted in the same overall search performance as the other coloring schemes.
...
The participants' overall comments on color usage were positive and they reported of perceived performance improvement. However, the results of the experiment do not support his intuition."
This makes the "this blog article is bullshit" comments above look quite amusing indeed.
Anonymous
Thu 17-Jul-2014 14:06
Thu 17-Jul-2014 14:06
En annan nackdel med syntaxfärger är att man skriver kod på ett mycket mer rörigt sätt just på grund av att den är lättare att läsa med färger. Utan färgerna (om man öppnar filen med `less`) blir den mer svårläst. Skriver man utan färger från början så blir man tvungen att arrangera koden på ett snyggare sätt, t.ex. genom att indentera variabelnamn, och den blir då lättläst både med färger och i svartvitt.
Anonymous
Sun 7-Sep-2014 20:37
Sun 7-Sep-2014 20:37
"this blog article is bullshit"
Anonymous
Tue 9-Sep-2014 22:08
Tue 9-Sep-2014 22:08
This is basically a nice thought technology for some people to try rather than rejecting it out of hand.
I work in 'big iron' mainframes where some of the editing tools lack syntax highlighting and others have syntax highlighting. Most new comers and experienced people report finding the lack of syntax highlighting slows down their coding and leads to more errors that are harder to find. A minority (maybe the geniuses?) report finding removing syntax highlighting a boon and I have long advocated that they develop schemes in the tools where syntax highlighting is available to remove or minimise syntax highlighting.
I haven't kept hard numbers but in my estimates are that about 90% of people write better code, faster, with syntax highlighting and 10% the opposite. Given my experience it makes sense for you to follow Linus' advice and try out the options and see what group you are in.
From years of personal experience I know I am in the 'syntax highlighting helps me' camp. I FTP code out of environments without syntax highlighting to put it into editors with highlighting and often immediately see bugs I have spent ages searching for or find design flaws that leap off the screen with some help (these are declarative and or interpreted tools with no compiler to help me).
But that doesn't mean the same is true for Linus or for you. Give it a try and find out.
Perhaps I am in the dumbo camp and Linus and you are in the genius group. It is cheap to find out. If I have a bad knee I will use crutches without shame, it would be better to not have to use them but if they get me to my goal faster or with less pain then I am not going to deny myself the help on a matter of principle. But if crutches are getting in your way more than they help then you would be a fool to keep using them.
The argument that people should only comment if they have solid statistical data is simply missing the point of what stats do and don't tell you. Group stats tell you nothing about any individual in a group. Even if 99.999% of people do better with option A if YOU are one of the 0.001% who do better with option B then 100% of YOU do better with option B. Therefore you should use option B if it makes sense to do so even though it would be a bad choice statistically.
I work in 'big iron' mainframes where some of the editing tools lack syntax highlighting and others have syntax highlighting. Most new comers and experienced people report finding the lack of syntax highlighting slows down their coding and leads to more errors that are harder to find. A minority (maybe the geniuses?) report finding removing syntax highlighting a boon and I have long advocated that they develop schemes in the tools where syntax highlighting is available to remove or minimise syntax highlighting.
I haven't kept hard numbers but in my estimates are that about 90% of people write better code, faster, with syntax highlighting and 10% the opposite. Given my experience it makes sense for you to follow Linus' advice and try out the options and see what group you are in.
From years of personal experience I know I am in the 'syntax highlighting helps me' camp. I FTP code out of environments without syntax highlighting to put it into editors with highlighting and often immediately see bugs I have spent ages searching for or find design flaws that leap off the screen with some help (these are declarative and or interpreted tools with no compiler to help me).
But that doesn't mean the same is true for Linus or for you. Give it a try and find out.
Perhaps I am in the dumbo camp and Linus and you are in the genius group. It is cheap to find out. If I have a bad knee I will use crutches without shame, it would be better to not have to use them but if they get me to my goal faster or with less pain then I am not going to deny myself the help on a matter of principle. But if crutches are getting in your way more than they help then you would be a fool to keep using them.
The argument that people should only comment if they have solid statistical data is simply missing the point of what stats do and don't tell you. Group stats tell you nothing about any individual in a group. Even if 99.999% of people do better with option A if YOU are one of the 0.001% who do better with option B then 100% of YOU do better with option B. Therefore you should use option B if it makes sense to do so even though it would be a bad choice statistically.
Anonymous
Wed 21-Jan-2015 14:06
Wed 21-Jan-2015 14:06
Thanks for your post. What is true is that you have to view the same thing in different ways...
I will start different modes of operation:
If I'm in a hurry: syntax highlighting
If I have time, I will relax myself: no syntax highlighting
I will start different modes of operation:
If I'm in a hurry: syntax highlighting
If I have time, I will relax myself: no syntax highlighting
Anonymous
Sun 12-Apr-2015 10:04
Sun 12-Apr-2015 10:04
a similar opinion, advocating a more "semantic" highlighting scheme: https://medium.com/@evnbr/coding-in-color-3a6db2743a1e
Anonymous
Thu 16-Apr-2015 11:02
Thu 16-Apr-2015 11:02
I tend to prefer syntax highlighting when typing mostly to avoid typing mistakes (the color change gives me a sort of "satisfaction" that I typed at least something properly).
One interesting thing though - 99% of the textbooks I use as reference do not use any syntax highlighting for the printed code samples -- at most they use "boldface" or something to make one part stand out ocasionally, but even this is used sparingly.
Maybe the problem with syntax highlighting is when it gets too much. Like do we really Eclipse to put something in italics if it is a static member? I hate that default setting and always turn it off. If there is just a few simple syntax highlighting elements then its fine, but if the number of distinct color categories gets to be more than a few then it quickly becomes of decreasing utility to me.
One interesting thing though - 99% of the textbooks I use as reference do not use any syntax highlighting for the printed code samples -- at most they use "boldface" or something to make one part stand out ocasionally, but even this is used sparingly.
Maybe the problem with syntax highlighting is when it gets too much. Like do we really Eclipse to put something in italics if it is a static member? I hate that default setting and always turn it off. If there is just a few simple syntax highlighting elements then its fine, but if the number of distinct color categories gets to be more than a few then it quickly becomes of decreasing utility to me.
Anonymous
Mon 4-May-2015 12:25
Mon 4-May-2015 12:25
I think syntax highlighting for prose may not be such a bad idea after all. If you trained yourself for the colors, it might become much easier to skim through text. Could be useful if you don't need to understand the content too deeply.
Anonymous
Sat 30-May-2015 03:48
Sat 30-May-2015 03:48
I happen to think that syntax is EXTREMELY important. It is what describes semantics to both people and machines. Different syntax highlighting is actually subtly different concrete syntax, just as different stylistic convention is subtly different concrete syntax. So it can (and often does) imply differences in semantics. That the highlighting goes away and is rebuilt differently between different editors and IDEs is the core of the problem. If the typography was precisely communicated in the source code of the program and everyone would see the same thing when they looked at it would not be a problem. But this isn't the case, so it is a problem.
It compounds subjectivity in reading source code. Not only do people simply think different things when they read the code, it is actually presented to them differently; hiding things that are obvious to others, and drawing attention to things that are not.
Rather than syntax highlighting being bad, the fragmentation of source code presentation is bad. Two very different approaches to fixing this are that of something like smalltalk, where the programming environment is 'built in', and everyone who works on the code uses that same interface; or that of something like golang that is packaged with a tool (gofmt) that transforms any valid go source file into one with a canonical layout. Golang also establishes a convention of applying this transformation to all golang source code before sharing it with others.
Where it is not a part of the established tooling for the language, it either amounts to inconsistency or an additional dependency. Neither of which is a good thing in the general case. Removing inconsistency makes the human interpretation of your code more coherent, and removing dependencies gives your software an additional dimension of freedom. It makes your code more portable between readers and allows you to use tools that might not provide the required dependency (syntax highlighting).
It compounds subjectivity in reading source code. Not only do people simply think different things when they read the code, it is actually presented to them differently; hiding things that are obvious to others, and drawing attention to things that are not.
Rather than syntax highlighting being bad, the fragmentation of source code presentation is bad. Two very different approaches to fixing this are that of something like smalltalk, where the programming environment is 'built in', and everyone who works on the code uses that same interface; or that of something like golang that is packaged with a tool (gofmt) that transforms any valid go source file into one with a canonical layout. Golang also establishes a convention of applying this transformation to all golang source code before sharing it with others.
Where it is not a part of the established tooling for the language, it either amounts to inconsistency or an additional dependency. Neither of which is a good thing in the general case. Removing inconsistency makes the human interpretation of your code more coherent, and removing dependencies gives your software an additional dimension of freedom. It makes your code more portable between readers and allows you to use tools that might not provide the required dependency (syntax highlighting).
Anonymous
Sat 13-Jun-2015 21:52
Sat 13-Jun-2015 21:52
lft wrote:
Bad behavior -- like smoking, shoplifting, or checking in code without unit tests -- should be made hard. Everything else should be made as simple as possible. Your own article confirms this.
Exactly. And making changes in code that one doesn't fully understand is bad, dangerous behaviour.
You don't dislike syntax highlighting because it makes it too easy for you to code, instead, you dislike it because you find your editor's fruit salad syntax highlighting distracting enough that it makes it _harder_.
But my point is that syntax highlighting makes it easier for us to dive in and fix the code before we understand it, because it encourages us to skim through the code on a superficial level. The syntax highlighting distracts us from seeing the forest by making it easier to see the trees.
I don't entirely disagree, but I find myself that syntax highlighting allows some part of the brain to parse the overall structure and find the part we need faster when we do already understand it.
I find it takes me longer to find what I need if the text isn't highlighted in a logical matter. I at least have been working with syntax highlighting so long, it doesn't distract me
Steve
Anonymous
Fri 14-Aug-2015 22:30
Fri 14-Aug-2015 22:30
Computer code isn't meant to be read like a text file. It's about structure, containment (in blocks defined by {} in C, C++). Syntax highlighting makes that structure transparent, until you need to read or edit it. For control structures, once they are in place and correct I don't need to look at them again and syntax highlighting, again, makes that transparent.
Try Solarized or some other syntax highlighting scheme that doesn't have sharp color differences.
While code is a text file, it is not prose, but really a document that relies on structure which doesn't have to be parsed along with the contents it contains.
Try Solarized or some other syntax highlighting scheme that doesn't have sharp color differences.
While code is a text file, it is not prose, but really a document that relies on structure which doesn't have to be parsed along with the contents it contains.
Anonymous
Sat 28-Nov-2015 14:02
Sat 28-Nov-2015 14:02
I can only assume the writer of this post has never worked with code that was written a long time ago, by many people who were adding functionality to the program without cleaning up after themselves or cleaning up other peoples mess.
When you start working with code that is poorly written, you can encounter situations where a global variable, a function argument and a local variable within a section of the code are all named the same. Having all these variables look the same on the screen adds to the general confusion of reading the code, wouldn't it be nice to have better syntax highlighting for these cases? When you encounter a situation like the one I am describing, you can be the judge.
When you start working with code that is poorly written, you can encounter situations where a global variable, a function argument and a local variable within a section of the code are all named the same. Having all these variables look the same on the screen adds to the general confusion of reading the code, wouldn't it be nice to have better syntax highlighting for these cases? When you encounter a situation like the one I am describing, you can be the judge.
Anonymous
Mon 30-Nov-2015 04:51
Mon 30-Nov-2015 04:51
Check any structured book - e.g. dictionary and realize that structure highlighting was invented ON PAPER many centuries ago.
Highlighted text is always easier to read as long as you deal with some structured data - it is no wonder that such basic command line utilities like "ls" have it too.
Highlighting is made to make LOOKUPS easier (as opposed to reading through as you'd do with prose book) and lookups is exactly the thing you'd be doing most often while working with code.
Highlighted text is always easier to read as long as you deal with some structured data - it is no wonder that such basic command line utilities like "ls" have it too.
Highlighting is made to make LOOKUPS easier (as opposed to reading through as you'd do with prose book) and lookups is exactly the thing you'd be doing most often while working with code.
Anonymous
Thu 28-Jan-2016 03:32
Thu 28-Jan-2016 03:32
This argument is specious and it is absurd beyond all reckoning. Coloring every word of a paragraph in natural language is in no way similar to syntax coloring in a programming language.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
Totally agree. Natural language syntax is, well, natural. We don't need a helping hand to understand. Programming languages are not natural, they've been designed by someone, and highlighting a function name, or a type in a declaration is a great help to sorting through what's of immediate interest. A program is more like an aircraft's control panel, where you have to find _that_ lever quickly than something you instinctively know, like natural language.
Perhaps Mr. Akesson speaks computer languages as fluently as his mother tongue. I certainly don't however.
Anonymous
Fri 5-Feb-2016 12:17
Fri 5-Feb-2016 12:17
Interesting discussion. I actually researched this at UNI back in 1983 and found a statistically significant improvement regarding the speed at which undergrads spotted simple bugs when colour coding was used to highlight basic code structure e.g. What If Then etc. This was compared with black and white and with and without indentation. That said I think there is an a lot more study needed to work out the ideal balance and most of the above comments are valid. Colour can be distracting (check out the Stroop effect). JonT.
Anonymous
Sat 6-Feb-2016 00:05
Sat 6-Feb-2016 00:05
Oh my goodness, such elitist.
Seriously man, the only reason we have coding styles, as in typing
function() {
}
rather than
function (
)
{
}
is for readability, and quickly fix mistake, and ease of debugging.
Which what syntax highlighting does, ease debugging on the fly.
Otherwise, do you want to debug for the rest of your life? Because that is how you debug for the rest of your life.
Seriously man, the only reason we have coding styles, as in typing
function() {
}
rather than
function (
)
{
}
is for readability, and quickly fix mistake, and ease of debugging.
Which what syntax highlighting does, ease debugging on the fly.
Otherwise, do you want to debug for the rest of your life? Because that is how you debug for the rest of your life.
Anonymous
Sat 2-Apr-2016 11:15
Sat 2-Apr-2016 11:15
I don't mind having all the bell's'whistles, but I also use the most basic of tools (ed, ftw!) from time to time, because I don't want to have to waste an hour setting up "my" environment if I need to do something with a system which is new to me.
git clone https://github.com/user/dotfiles.git
or
vagrant init my/box && vagrant up && vagrant ssh
Yes, it takes time to set up the environment initially. But not having my tools set up causes me to waste a lot of time that could be productive. I feel handicapped without vim and git. I *can* use vi, sed, and cp, but I can work faster when higher level tools are available.
Anonymous
Tue 7-Jun-2016 22:23
Tue 7-Jun-2016 22:23
lft wrote:
Developing software is complex and error-prone, so people need to be thinking when doing it. And yeah, I realize that these opinions are controversial to some.I agree. However, I don't see how syntax highlighting necessarily makes reasoning code easier or harder. I don't know if the arguments are specious, but I think and feel that much of the arguments here are weak and unconvincing.
You have already dismissed (without examination) the strongest argument for syntax highlighting: aesthetics. There are whole philosophies of aesthetics that makes a lot of sense, but only when we go beyond the mere results of the programming. The aesthetic argument for syntax highlighting isn't for the sake of the quality of the resulting program but rather, the quality of the experience for the programmer. That in and of itself is underestimated by a fixation on the resulting code.
There are philosophies that precisely define aesthetics, but these are generally in the non-dual philosophies, not the dualist philosophies. As soon as you have a dualist philosophy, you set up an opposition between privileging objective over subjective, or subjective over objective, and it resolves nothing. Non-dual philosophies do not privilege objective over subjective, or subjective over objective, and have a lot of useful, testable (empirical, experienceable) things to say about aesthetics.
Aesthetics bring a human perspective to the technology and reminds us that, however efficient a technology is, it shapes and is in turn shaped by our experiences as human beings.
Ho-Sheng Hsiao
Anonymous
Tue 7-Jun-2016 22:45
Tue 7-Jun-2016 22:45
lft wrote:
Exactly. And making changes in code that one doesn't fully understand is bad, dangerous behaviour.But what about code you do understand? I don't want to wade through hundreds of lines of code because there is no syntax highlighting when I could have skimmed it to get to the part I wanted to. Even for code that I didn't write syntax highlighting helps in figuring out a lot of things like whether a piece of code is is working with properties vs. static classes vs. interfaces without jumping to the definitions to figure it out.
You don't dislike syntax highlighting because it makes it too easy for you to code, instead, you dislike it because you find your editor's fruit salad syntax highlighting distracting enough that it makes it _harder_.
lft wrote:
But my point is that syntax highlighting makes it easier for us to dive in and fix the code before we understand it, because it encourages us to skim through the code on a superficial level. The syntax highlighting distracts us from seeing the forest by making it easier to see the trees.This is exactly what I want to do because I am a seasoned programmer who can understand highlighted code by skimming it to get to the gist of the issue. I can understand that as a novice you might take more time trying to understand the code but for seasoned programmers skimming works with highlighted code.
Anonymous
Wed 15-Jun-2016 23:30
Wed 15-Jun-2016 23:30
Maybe we got used to.
I open a code file with plain notepad. My brain has a hard time.
I open it with notepad++, it's so much easier to separate keywords.
But there is a difference of course. The colors are not as glaring as in the screenshot.
But there should be a time where I never had such luxury when coding. I just don't remember it. Or maybe the fonts on the notepad and the white background are not helping. Maybe I should try some DOS compiler with blue background and proper easily readable fonts.
It's like I got used and can't look code without color intentation. Light colors, not glaring. I could say the same about autocomplete. I got used.
People tell me the same, how the hell can I code without double screens. I still have a single screen at my home. Maybe I'll get used to two screens some time and then it's hard to get back.
I open a code file with plain notepad. My brain has a hard time.
I open it with notepad++, it's so much easier to separate keywords.
But there is a difference of course. The colors are not as glaring as in the screenshot.
But there should be a time where I never had such luxury when coding. I just don't remember it. Or maybe the fonts on the notepad and the white background are not helping. Maybe I should try some DOS compiler with blue background and proper easily readable fonts.
It's like I got used and can't look code without color intentation. Light colors, not glaring. I could say the same about autocomplete. I got used.
People tell me the same, how the hell can I code without double screens. I still have a single screen at my home. Maybe I'll get used to two screens some time and then it's hard to get back.
Anonymous
Wed 15-Jun-2016 23:43
Wed 15-Jun-2016 23:43
I am wondering actually how this works in code.
There was this video where there is simple questions where you could fall in a trap if you are too fast to answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-aCSFD3xro
In that experiment, they discovered that if they used a much harder to read font, students would struggle but then have much higher success percentage.
So, the idea is, would it be possible that looking at code that is not as easy to read, would have different effects in problem solving? Not tabs would be a problem. But no color highlighting could be okayish, because once upon a time we didn't need it and code wasn't that bad.
Just an idea, because my instinct says it helps, but what if in specific cases, pushing a bit the brain to understand text will lead to better understanding of code or problem solving?
There was this video where there is simple questions where you could fall in a trap if you are too fast to answer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-aCSFD3xro
In that experiment, they discovered that if they used a much harder to read font, students would struggle but then have much higher success percentage.
So, the idea is, would it be possible that looking at code that is not as easy to read, would have different effects in problem solving? Not tabs would be a problem. But no color highlighting could be okayish, because once upon a time we didn't need it and code wasn't that bad.
Just an idea, because my instinct says it helps, but what if in specific cases, pushing a bit the brain to understand text will lead to better understanding of code or problem solving?
Anonymous
Wed 6-Jul-2016 12:24
Wed 6-Jul-2016 12:24
I cannot agree.
Colores can be misleading or helpful. In your paragraph of quoting, you make it misleading, although you marked all words of same type with the same color, because it's not structured like we do in programming and so it cannot stand. Even you argue it's not part of your article, the image you use tends to mislead readers to agree with your point. So it's not proper.
And, if we think colors can be distracting, can indentations be? And wrong formatting? My point is, all these visual elements help us to understand the semantic part, and are useful for many. If they mislead you, they are not properly used, doesn't mean it is nothing worthy. And, if you skim and ignore important informations, maybe you skim wrongly. You cannot blame the colors.
One example of mine: when I enter a new Company, I need to adapt myself into new projects, and syntax coloring helps me to identify each element and each type, to get to know the structure of every function, method, class, etc. If I have glipsed several lines of Calendar.getXXX(), which has a distinct color to make themselves more distinguishable, I know this part is about processing date and I skip this part to the next bloc. At last we seperate code in different lines, we use indentations, we use spaces to make it more readable, not only syntax coloring. Reading code is a combination of format, not only marking them with color.
So, I insist that if we find that the format or syntax coloring is misleading, it may not because we are not paying attention, or they distracted us, but we use them in a wrong way, so we change them to fit our purposes.
Colores can be misleading or helpful. In your paragraph of quoting, you make it misleading, although you marked all words of same type with the same color, because it's not structured like we do in programming and so it cannot stand. Even you argue it's not part of your article, the image you use tends to mislead readers to agree with your point. So it's not proper.
And, if we think colors can be distracting, can indentations be? And wrong formatting? My point is, all these visual elements help us to understand the semantic part, and are useful for many. If they mislead you, they are not properly used, doesn't mean it is nothing worthy. And, if you skim and ignore important informations, maybe you skim wrongly. You cannot blame the colors.
One example of mine: when I enter a new Company, I need to adapt myself into new projects, and syntax coloring helps me to identify each element and each type, to get to know the structure of every function, method, class, etc. If I have glipsed several lines of Calendar.getXXX(), which has a distinct color to make themselves more distinguishable, I know this part is about processing date and I skip this part to the next bloc. At last we seperate code in different lines, we use indentations, we use spaces to make it more readable, not only syntax coloring. Reading code is a combination of format, not only marking them with color.
So, I insist that if we find that the format or syntax coloring is misleading, it may not because we are not paying attention, or they distracted us, but we use them in a wrong way, so we change them to fit our purposes.
Anonymous
Mon 22-Aug-2016 15:51
Mon 22-Aug-2016 15:51
With some languages and their naming conventions syntax colouring or highlighting is an absolute must without which the language is totally disfunct.
For example when using the C family of languages in combination with their prevailing all-lowercase with underscore naming convention, syntax highlighting is an absolute must have to stay sane when reading the source.
consider this C family syntax:
foo_bar_baz_t bam_boo_wah;
and compare that with its Pascal family equivalent:
VAR bamBooWah : FooBarBaz;
The Pascal family syntax stands on its own. It was designed for human readers.
By contrast, the C family syntax cannot stand on its own, it requires syntax highlighting to separate individual identifiers. This syntax was not designed for humans, it was designed for machine reading efficiency only.
When a syntax that was designed for machine reading is being abused as a tool for human writers and readers, then it must be augmented so that it becomes legible to humans.
We also do so with other syntactic entities that were not designed for human readers, for example long columns of digits are often separated by some separator symbol for human consumption even though they do not add any meaning:
00:ff:ab:07:29:f0:c0
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the separators shouldn't be used to make the data more human readable simply because one has to learn to read huge numbers of columns without separators. What for? To show off?
For example when using the C family of languages in combination with their prevailing all-lowercase with underscore naming convention, syntax highlighting is an absolute must have to stay sane when reading the source.
consider this C family syntax:
foo_bar_baz_t bam_boo_wah;
and compare that with its Pascal family equivalent:
VAR bamBooWah : FooBarBaz;
The Pascal family syntax stands on its own. It was designed for human readers.
By contrast, the C family syntax cannot stand on its own, it requires syntax highlighting to separate individual identifiers. This syntax was not designed for humans, it was designed for machine reading efficiency only.
When a syntax that was designed for machine reading is being abused as a tool for human writers and readers, then it must be augmented so that it becomes legible to humans.
We also do so with other syntactic entities that were not designed for human readers, for example long columns of digits are often separated by some separator symbol for human consumption even though they do not add any meaning:
00:ff:ab:07:29:f0:c0
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the separators shouldn't be used to make the data more human readable simply because one has to learn to read huge numbers of columns without separators. What for? To show off?
Anonymous
Sat 24-Dec-2016 12:45
Sat 24-Dec-2016 12:45
In your Alice example, you have used the wrong syntax colour for the word White.
Anonymous
Sun 15-Jan-2017 22:47
Sun 15-Jan-2017 22:47
This argument is specious and it is absurd beyond all reckoning. Coloring every word of a paragraph in natural language is in no way similar to syntax coloring in a programming language.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
exactly. what a joke.
i couldn't finish the rest of the article after reading that sidebar.
Anonymous
Mon 16-Jan-2017 03:08
Mon 16-Jan-2017 03:08
Well said, my friend.
When I started programming, color highlighting would have been impossible because all monitors were either white, green, or amber.
But even with modern IDE's, I find coloring to be distracting.
Now, there are SO MANY code variations, that assigning any meaning to them is rather meaningless. They are lost amid a WASH of colors.
To add to your "exceptions", here are the only other areas that I find color highlighting helpful. It is helpful not in reading code that is actually there, but helpful in finding code that is MISSING.
Unterminated strings. Missing closing tags/statements. That sort of thing.
About the only time that color coding helps me is when I see a long block of code that is obviously the *wrong* color. Pretty much the same observation you made about landing in a patch of commented out code.
And, hello from Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Kirby Wallace
;-)
When I started programming, color highlighting would have been impossible because all monitors were either white, green, or amber.
But even with modern IDE's, I find coloring to be distracting.
Now, there are SO MANY code variations, that assigning any meaning to them is rather meaningless. They are lost amid a WASH of colors.
To add to your "exceptions", here are the only other areas that I find color highlighting helpful. It is helpful not in reading code that is actually there, but helpful in finding code that is MISSING.
Unterminated strings. Missing closing tags/statements. That sort of thing.
About the only time that color coding helps me is when I see a long block of code that is obviously the *wrong* color. Pretty much the same observation you made about landing in a patch of commented out code.
And, hello from Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Kirby Wallace
;-)
Anonymous
Mon 30-Jan-2017 04:42
Mon 30-Jan-2017 04:42
This argument is specious and it is absurd beyond all reckoning. Coloring every word of a paragraph in natural language is in no way similar to syntax coloring in a programming language.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
I just cannot believe that anyone could take this argument seriously.
Frankly, that's EXACTLY what all syntax-coloured code looks like to me.
It colours according to distinctions I make effortlessly anyway,
and reduces contrast to the point where i have a hard time reading
ANYTHING.
Before syntax *colouring* we had syntax *styling*, which provided
all the help that colouring is alleged to provide without being
anywhere near as visually distracting. One extremely useful
thing -- in a language with seriously messed up syntax like the
C family -- was displaying the definitions of identifiers a point size
or two larger than their uses. I found that extremely helpful but have
yet to find a syntax colouring tool that does the same.
Anonymous
Fri 24-Feb-2017 09:43
Fri 24-Feb-2017 09:43
I'm unsure whether to laugh at this article, or cringe from sheer fremdschämen on its author's behalf. Currently sitting halfway in abject disbelief.
Rather than attempt a sane response, I'll simply recommend you poke through nested Groff macros or the magic-data tables of the venerable file(1) program (ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-5.30.tar.gz, under magic/Magdir). If you can dig through those without admitting highlighting plays a critical role in legibility, you're kidding yourself; but you're not kidding every reader shaking their head over this tripe.
Rather than attempt a sane response, I'll simply recommend you poke through nested Groff macros or the magic-data tables of the venerable file(1) program (ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-5.30.tar.gz, under magic/Magdir). If you can dig through those without admitting highlighting plays a critical role in legibility, you're kidding yourself; but you're not kidding every reader shaking their head over this tripe.
Anonymous
Thu 20-Apr-2017 17:43
Thu 20-Apr-2017 17:43
We don't color our prose just as we don't start our programs with "once upon a time."
Speak for yourself.
#pragma once upon a time
(I know that the quoted comment is 10 years old.)
Anonymous
Fri 14-Jul-2017 21:16
Fri 14-Jul-2017 21:16
Sounds lot like comparing a "Automobile" to an "Airplane". Both are machines yeah, no doubt, providing similar solutions, 'transport'. Remove all the "extra" "detectors" and "sensors" from the airplane because that's not the pilot's problem (since the factories manufacturing the airplanes are already suppose to handle that, 'equipment error'). The pilot's job is to only keep his eyes wide open (check left and right probably) and fly it (that's what you're suggesting). Me, personally, if I were a pilot, I'll never fly that plane (never ever).
Anonymous
Thu 31-Aug-2017 13:20
Thu 31-Aug-2017 13:20
(I apologize: English is not my native language, so this comment might be riddled with horrible and mindboggling mistakes. But I'll try my best to keep their numbers as low as it's possible.)
Thank you for your article. It spawned few discussion threads in comments that I found wastly interesting. Those made me richer - in new ideas, at least (which is not a small thing, I recon).
As I see this theme now: highlighting is enhancement, which when used inappropriately, can dull your professional skills with certain languages or systems.
But enhancement nonetheless.
So, as every pseudo-intelligence helper (like shell filter, or visual element in GUI... etc) it can either helpful or unhelpful - depending on 2 factors:
1. how overly smart it tries to behave
2. task you have to solve.
Personally I have chunks of HTML code in front of my eyes from server response I'm debugging. Those would be horribly unreadable if read without highlighting. I mean, at all. For me at least. Long tags with lots of properties like classes or data-... attributes over 200chars per line, CRLN-ed mid-tag, with broken indent and I have to understand what is going on inside, what's where and really don't have a chance without highlighting. Or it would be too bothersome.
In more C-like languages, I like a more minimalist take on highlighting: 3 highlighting colors of '1.comments', '2.strings', '3.everythingElse'. In some cases language constructs would be interesting to take into 4th group but that varies from language to language, from program to program.
I really like bright-red highlighting of '#TODO' in code. It is not required, but it brings a nice touch to my workflow (my memory is that of a goldfish).
When writing server-side code for pages - processing HTML-forms input, organizing sanitation of input and database queries, I would be thankful to have visible representation of invisible characters. Actually, I would like to see those in any place of a code. Also in a mix of English and Cyrillic character I'd like to discern English 'a' and 'а' - if left unchecked those could break sanity checks or functions/variables names.
But at the same time I clearly see that it is beneficial for me to have a skill to work with system having only vi + terminal to write rc-files. (I need a working Unix-like workstation - MS Windows weird water pipes are not good enough for my needs)
I assume that articles that you outlined in your article could be interesting for me, in a case if I would be developing C programs. Which as of now, I am not. So, perhaps it depends on programming language?
Thank you for your article. It spawned few discussion threads in comments that I found wastly interesting. Those made me richer - in new ideas, at least (which is not a small thing, I recon).
As I see this theme now: highlighting is enhancement, which when used inappropriately, can dull your professional skills with certain languages or systems.
But enhancement nonetheless.
So, as every pseudo-intelligence helper (like shell filter, or visual element in GUI... etc) it can either helpful or unhelpful - depending on 2 factors:
1. how overly smart it tries to behave
2. task you have to solve.
Personally I have chunks of HTML code in front of my eyes from server response I'm debugging. Those would be horribly unreadable if read without highlighting. I mean, at all. For me at least. Long tags with lots of properties like classes or data-... attributes over 200chars per line, CRLN-ed mid-tag, with broken indent and I have to understand what is going on inside, what's where and really don't have a chance without highlighting. Or it would be too bothersome.
In more C-like languages, I like a more minimalist take on highlighting: 3 highlighting colors of '1.comments', '2.strings', '3.everythingElse'. In some cases language constructs would be interesting to take into 4th group but that varies from language to language, from program to program.
I really like bright-red highlighting of '#TODO' in code. It is not required, but it brings a nice touch to my workflow (my memory is that of a goldfish).
When writing server-side code for pages - processing HTML-forms input, organizing sanitation of input and database queries, I would be thankful to have visible representation of invisible characters. Actually, I would like to see those in any place of a code. Also in a mix of English and Cyrillic character I'd like to discern English 'a' and 'а' - if left unchecked those could break sanity checks or functions/variables names.
But at the same time I clearly see that it is beneficial for me to have a skill to work with system having only vi + terminal to write rc-files. (I need a working Unix-like workstation - MS Windows weird water pipes are not good enough for my needs)
I assume that articles that you outlined in your article could be interesting for me, in a case if I would be developing C programs. Which as of now, I am not. So, perhaps it depends on programming language?
Anonymous
Tue 11-Sep-2018 04:08
Tue 11-Sep-2018 04:08
I view programming from the perspective of a language. I know that this kind of view point is absurd. but that's how I view programming. I find that looking at highlighted text is a distraction for me. I also believe that allowing colored syntax to help me pick out variable and functions and comments just seems too much assistance.
However, highlighting text does have its benefits. For example: highlighting a line of text which you are trying to remember which concerning a concept or point of view. Underlining or highlighting is great for picking out main points from paragraphs. But it's not used to highlight the differences between a noun or a pronoun, or a verb from a adverb. These things need to be taught without the use of highlights.
However, highlighting text does have its benefits. For example: highlighting a line of text which you are trying to remember which concerning a concept or point of view. Underlining or highlighting is great for picking out main points from paragraphs. But it's not used to highlight the differences between a noun or a pronoun, or a verb from a adverb. These things need to be taught without the use of highlights.
Anonymous
Fri 5-Oct-2018 19:53
Fri 5-Oct-2018 19:53
I feel dumber having read this.
Anonymous
Thu 25-Oct-2018 12:24
Thu 25-Oct-2018 12:24
I see some more benefits, mostly when there are naming collisions. Syntax highlighting
- warns when you accidentally have a naming collision with one of the countless windows macros.
- shows whether an identifier is seen as parameter, variable or member
- and as you said.. comments
it would be neat to have precedence highlighted aswell but im unsure how that had to be done visually without cluttering.
Things that aren't absolutely obvious immediately thats where syntax highlighting is useful.
- warns when you accidentally have a naming collision with one of the countless windows macros.
- shows whether an identifier is seen as parameter, variable or member
- and as you said.. comments
it would be neat to have precedence highlighted aswell but im unsure how that had to be done visually without cluttering.
Things that aren't absolutely obvious immediately thats where syntax highlighting is useful.
Anonymous
Tue 20-Nov-2018 10:28
Tue 20-Nov-2018 10:28
lft wrote:
Many of you complain about my comparison with prose. However, I don't use that as an argument in the text. I even write "Unlike novels..." in the section about semantics. I added the Alice in Wonderland quote as an amusing illustration. Perhaps some of you were just skimming through the article, rather than trying to understand it... =)But it's only an amusing illustration if it actually manages to illustrate your point. And it doesn't. So your amusing illustration fails on both counts.
Anonymous
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:34
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:34
I know I'm late to the party, but I liked the article. It's a valuable perspective and critique, and I likewise understand the passion sparked by the argument instead.
Speaking as a non-neurotypical programmer, however, I feel the issue is more nuanced: I'm not sure the proposition is as binary as the article seems to paint it. This is my takeaway of the article, as fairly as I can put it:
* Syntax highlighting wrongly shifts the focus from structure to the building blocks themselves. This causes developers to fixate on form rather than function.
* Syntax highlighting offers a shortcut around proper understanding, until that shortcut no longer works and then the student is effectively stymied.
* Syntax highlighting encourages poor habits, such as the aforementioned skimming.
* Syntax highlighting doesn't help in situations where it would be genuinely beneficial, or at least, does not offer a sturdy enough safety net that you can afford to lean on it.
These points are fair, but I feel they are predicated on the notion that this is all that syntax highlighting can offer, particularly for programmers whose brain architecture and thus cognition may differ from that of the norm. I do not consider myself stupid (although that may be the Dunning-Kruger effect talking), but I do quite often feel stupid when faced with the common tools of the profession. To me, the benefits of syntax highlighting go well beyond simply allowing me to tell the difference between an object and a type. I shall forbear from quoting Dijkstra's observations on phrenology, and instead simply observe that given the choice between expending significant cognitive effort on following code execution and instead using that energy to be more productive, I much prefer the second option.
So what does syntax highlighting give me?
* I have ADHD. In addition, my mind is visually oriented: it uses shapes and colors to attach meaning. The way my brain partitions a program is thus a natural fit for a discreet application of color. That way, I don't have to keep the entire program in my skull (I'm a C++ programmer in a legacy codebase: we have hundreds of 7000+ LOC files that all interact in nonobvious ways, and focusing on all those details is simply unviable). It makes the code structure itself distinct to me, which is a very good help when getting my bearings, and prevents my brain from spinning out of control and overfocusing on the wrong things.
* Similarly, I've occasionally experimented with editors that let me move temporarily irrelevant code out of focus. That is a massive boon for me, because I can still easily see where things are, I'm just not forced to pay attention to them, allowing my brain to assign them a smaller portion of my attention.
* The article appears to cast understanding and skimming as mutually opposing phenomena. I would question that. To the contrary, I believe both are necessary in order to advance: it's part of what makes high-level abstractions (leakiness and all) such a powerful concept. When I look for bugs, a total in-depth understanding of all the code that passes under my eye would be detrimental... and likely take years. Instead, I skim, and while syntax highlighting may encourage skimming, I submit that is so for another reason: because it makes skimming viable and a useful tool for quickly evaluating the gist of a given piece of code. For someone such as I, who read code iteratively, it is a godsend.
* Visual Studio represents code that is defined out in a lighter shade than code that will actually run. I have no idea what I would have done if I hadn't had that feature, but I suspect refactoring would simply not have happened.
* The fact that syntax highlighting doesn't solve several preventable bugs is unfortunate. It does not, however, invalidate the concept itself. All it proves is that syntax highlighting falls short of perfection.
So I think there's value in syntax highlighting. It certainly helps me. However, there's a good case to be made against syntax highlighting as it is. On reflection, I've come to realize that the issue rather resembles the criticism levied against Hungarian notation, and that seems to indicate that the problem isn't so much that syntax can be highlighted but that it's often highlighted in the wrong manner and for the wrong reasons. We generally don't garish colors for all the types and objects and keywords.
But we *can* use it to lace the source with actual meaning, and this is particularly fine if the compiler and editor can use it to dispense with what would otherwise be useless and mentally taxing makework.
Speaking as a non-neurotypical programmer, however, I feel the issue is more nuanced: I'm not sure the proposition is as binary as the article seems to paint it. This is my takeaway of the article, as fairly as I can put it:
* Syntax highlighting wrongly shifts the focus from structure to the building blocks themselves. This causes developers to fixate on form rather than function.
* Syntax highlighting offers a shortcut around proper understanding, until that shortcut no longer works and then the student is effectively stymied.
* Syntax highlighting encourages poor habits, such as the aforementioned skimming.
* Syntax highlighting doesn't help in situations where it would be genuinely beneficial, or at least, does not offer a sturdy enough safety net that you can afford to lean on it.
These points are fair, but I feel they are predicated on the notion that this is all that syntax highlighting can offer, particularly for programmers whose brain architecture and thus cognition may differ from that of the norm. I do not consider myself stupid (although that may be the Dunning-Kruger effect talking), but I do quite often feel stupid when faced with the common tools of the profession. To me, the benefits of syntax highlighting go well beyond simply allowing me to tell the difference between an object and a type. I shall forbear from quoting Dijkstra's observations on phrenology, and instead simply observe that given the choice between expending significant cognitive effort on following code execution and instead using that energy to be more productive, I much prefer the second option.
So what does syntax highlighting give me?
* I have ADHD. In addition, my mind is visually oriented: it uses shapes and colors to attach meaning. The way my brain partitions a program is thus a natural fit for a discreet application of color. That way, I don't have to keep the entire program in my skull (I'm a C++ programmer in a legacy codebase: we have hundreds of 7000+ LOC files that all interact in nonobvious ways, and focusing on all those details is simply unviable). It makes the code structure itself distinct to me, which is a very good help when getting my bearings, and prevents my brain from spinning out of control and overfocusing on the wrong things.
* Similarly, I've occasionally experimented with editors that let me move temporarily irrelevant code out of focus. That is a massive boon for me, because I can still easily see where things are, I'm just not forced to pay attention to them, allowing my brain to assign them a smaller portion of my attention.
* The article appears to cast understanding and skimming as mutually opposing phenomena. I would question that. To the contrary, I believe both are necessary in order to advance: it's part of what makes high-level abstractions (leakiness and all) such a powerful concept. When I look for bugs, a total in-depth understanding of all the code that passes under my eye would be detrimental... and likely take years. Instead, I skim, and while syntax highlighting may encourage skimming, I submit that is so for another reason: because it makes skimming viable and a useful tool for quickly evaluating the gist of a given piece of code. For someone such as I, who read code iteratively, it is a godsend.
* Visual Studio represents code that is defined out in a lighter shade than code that will actually run. I have no idea what I would have done if I hadn't had that feature, but I suspect refactoring would simply not have happened.
* The fact that syntax highlighting doesn't solve several preventable bugs is unfortunate. It does not, however, invalidate the concept itself. All it proves is that syntax highlighting falls short of perfection.
So I think there's value in syntax highlighting. It certainly helps me. However, there's a good case to be made against syntax highlighting as it is. On reflection, I've come to realize that the issue rather resembles the criticism levied against Hungarian notation, and that seems to indicate that the problem isn't so much that syntax can be highlighted but that it's often highlighted in the wrong manner and for the wrong reasons. We generally don't garish colors for all the types and objects and keywords.
But we *can* use it to lace the source with actual meaning, and this is particularly fine if the compiler and editor can use it to dispense with what would otherwise be useless and mentally taxing makework.
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:39
Björn Paulsen
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:39
(The above screed was mine. Unfortunately the login window lapsed.)
Anonymous
Fri 18-Jan-2019 18:00
Fri 18-Jan-2019 18:00
As an old-skool programmer, learned to type on a hollerith punchcard machine, having just started in an environment where every syntax colouriser under the sun has been applied I find it hugely distracting. But that's my personal preference, the guy I took over clearly loves his coloured object. I just find some of the colours are really unreadable. I suspect that there's a median ground that most people would accept is helpful and the uncoloured or completely garish schemes are probably less acceptable to most. However, it's likely that each of us depending on our history would settle on a different level of highlighting of text. Me, I go for the correctly indented, black text on pale ground, even Linux's habits of colouring the ls output grates. Why is a .png purple and .deb and .gz and .zip red? Do I care that the red ones are all compressed files of some type? One one needs unzip, one needs gunzip and one is an installer package and making them all highlighted in red is zero value.
Anonymous
Wed 20-Feb-2019 16:04
Wed 20-Feb-2019 16:04
Thanks!!! I understand your point. Our eye will put attention on every word highlighted on the text. So a important resource is lost, because highlight is all the place. A use with parsimony like compile error is better then emphasized every variable.
ildenir.github.io
ildenir.github.io
Anonymous
Fri 26-Apr-2019 07:54
Fri 26-Apr-2019 07:54
Your english language example is malformed. Colors picked such a way, that more important words are harder to read then less important. I believe that with practice human vision would adapt to this, to learn what colors are more important, but it not good for an example, because no one would try to learn to read english with such a colored scheme.
At first, text needs more contrast. Light green on light gray is impossibe to read. Black background would be better. Or white background and... though I cannot say, I'm using dark theme for programming, but I'm sure there should exist good light themes somewhere. The second is colors should be picked such a way, that verbs and nouns jumped into retina maybe even damaged it, while words like "and/or/else..." should be of less violent color.
Despite of that, I should say it is a great idea. If I figure out a way to algorithmically color text, I will patch my ebook reader program and try to read ebooks with coloring. I think, that reading speed should be greater. Maybe not due to coloring, but because of the need to learn new tricks, but in any case it is a really cool idea. Thanks.
At first, text needs more contrast. Light green on light gray is impossibe to read. Black background would be better. Or white background and... though I cannot say, I'm using dark theme for programming, but I'm sure there should exist good light themes somewhere. The second is colors should be picked such a way, that verbs and nouns jumped into retina maybe even damaged it, while words like "and/or/else..." should be of less violent color.
Despite of that, I should say it is a great idea. If I figure out a way to algorithmically color text, I will patch my ebook reader program and try to read ebooks with coloring. I think, that reading speed should be greater. Maybe not due to coloring, but because of the need to learn new tricks, but in any case it is a really cool idea. Thanks.
Anonymous
Mon 5-Aug-2019 15:20
Mon 5-Aug-2019 15:20
>Syntax errors will be found by the compiler anyway; the developers shouldn't waste time looking for them.
Actually, the syntax of every mainstream PL is so complex that you will often misinterpret a piece of code unless you parse each individual token in your head. Even a for a trivial PL with parentheses, you have to spend time rigorously parsing them as soon as the depth gets to around 3 or 4. This is because abstract data is represented in 1 dimension instead of something more natural for a human such as 2 dimensions. Convert something like (a (b (c (d e f)) (g h) (i j)))) to boxes and it becomes immediately obvious which is more readable. I've actually implemented a PL using just boxes and an editor that does operations on those boxes. In this case color actually is helpful because you can color code different types of boxes instead of decorating them differently (e.g to distinguish between a pattern match and composition operator).
>multi-line comments. If you're jumping around in a source code file, perhaps as part of an interactive search-and-replace operation, you might end up in the middle of a large block of commented-out code.
Actually, this doesn't work either. For example in Vim it's unreliable. You go to the middle of the file and the above stuff isn't colored the right way until you scroll up and then back down.
>With syntax highlighting it would be possible to mark "=" and "==" in different colours.
So we make two operators, which we claim are too hard to distinguish apart, and then make an optional editor that colors them. This doesn't seem like a good PL design to me.
Now all these problems are made an order of magnitude harder when you're trying to audit code for backdoors and underhanded code.
TL;DR PLs are horribly broken even at a level as trivial as syntax
I agree with the article though, syntax highlighting is useless or provides trivial benefits at best.
Actually, the syntax of every mainstream PL is so complex that you will often misinterpret a piece of code unless you parse each individual token in your head. Even a for a trivial PL with parentheses, you have to spend time rigorously parsing them as soon as the depth gets to around 3 or 4. This is because abstract data is represented in 1 dimension instead of something more natural for a human such as 2 dimensions. Convert something like (a (b (c (d e f)) (g h) (i j)))) to boxes and it becomes immediately obvious which is more readable. I've actually implemented a PL using just boxes and an editor that does operations on those boxes. In this case color actually is helpful because you can color code different types of boxes instead of decorating them differently (e.g to distinguish between a pattern match and composition operator).
>multi-line comments. If you're jumping around in a source code file, perhaps as part of an interactive search-and-replace operation, you might end up in the middle of a large block of commented-out code.
Actually, this doesn't work either. For example in Vim it's unreliable. You go to the middle of the file and the above stuff isn't colored the right way until you scroll up and then back down.
>With syntax highlighting it would be possible to mark "=" and "==" in different colours.
So we make two operators, which we claim are too hard to distinguish apart, and then make an optional editor that colors them. This doesn't seem like a good PL design to me.
Now all these problems are made an order of magnitude harder when you're trying to audit code for backdoors and underhanded code.
TL;DR PLs are horribly broken even at a level as trivial as syntax
I agree with the article though, syntax highlighting is useless or provides trivial benefits at best.
Anonymous
Fri 8-May-2020 19:04
Fri 8-May-2020 19:04
I really don't know what to think of that...
About the fact that the coloration scares beginners, I don't think so: about all beginners don't care about colors at all, so I don't think that is the biggest point.
I tried to remove totally the coloration except for comments / strings, but I saw the problem: It is harder to find the structure of your code !
For example, I use python, and when you make a module with few classes, functions etc, it is so hard to find where your class definition is (even is python has a lot of indentation).
For sure, this problem can be deleted with using a "structure" tool (such as in Spyder) that finds the classes, the functions, and the important comments, and make crossers to them so they are clickable... but this is slower that just scroll !
Another think you say is that the coloration is not useful for remiding the keywords names: I'm don't really agree with that: indeed, I'm not a good English-speaker, and I think that even native English-speakers can misspell a "return" to a "retun", and without coloration you dont' realize it !!!! This problem can be solved with a good auto-completion device (like kite or TabNine for python), but if you work on a big file, the auto-completion is slow, and sometimes you just don't want to wait for it !
So my point of view is that the syntax highlighting for keywords should be made of shades of the same color, italic, bold and underlined words, of a light color for operators (changing depending of the operator, and the thickness also), and finally, of another light color for user-defined things (variables, objects etc...).
Thank you really much for this veryyyyy interesting article !!!
About the fact that the coloration scares beginners, I don't think so: about all beginners don't care about colors at all, so I don't think that is the biggest point.
I tried to remove totally the coloration except for comments / strings, but I saw the problem: It is harder to find the structure of your code !
For example, I use python, and when you make a module with few classes, functions etc, it is so hard to find where your class definition is (even is python has a lot of indentation).
For sure, this problem can be deleted with using a "structure" tool (such as in Spyder) that finds the classes, the functions, and the important comments, and make crossers to them so they are clickable... but this is slower that just scroll !
Another think you say is that the coloration is not useful for remiding the keywords names: I'm don't really agree with that: indeed, I'm not a good English-speaker, and I think that even native English-speakers can misspell a "return" to a "retun", and without coloration you dont' realize it !!!! This problem can be solved with a good auto-completion device (like kite or TabNine for python), but if you work on a big file, the auto-completion is slow, and sometimes you just don't want to wait for it !
So my point of view is that the syntax highlighting for keywords should be made of shades of the same color, italic, bold and underlined words, of a light color for operators (changing depending of the operator, and the thickness also), and finally, of another light color for user-defined things (variables, objects etc...).
Thank you really much for this veryyyyy interesting article !!!
Anonymous
Fri 8-May-2020 19:10
Fri 8-May-2020 19:10
Another think I forget to say in the previous comment is that a guy that would learn to read English only with colors like you showed could be as good as us to read English (maybe better, if they are always the same colors, because his comprehension could be helped by the colors), and this guy would probably have difficulties to read without colors !
So I personnally think that, if you never change your colors (not as me), you can be faster because you will be helped by the colors to CLASSIFY keywords, and to see the STRUCTURE of your code.
So I personnally think that, if you never change your colors (not as me), you can be faster because you will be helped by the colors to CLASSIFY keywords, and to see the STRUCTURE of your code.
Anonymous
Wed 27-May-2020 22:24
Wed 27-May-2020 22:24
I don't blame you for hating the colors that you've shown here. They're a hideous rainbow of confusion.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
...
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
Maybe you wouldn't be arguing against syntax highlighting if you'd just try a simpler color scheme. An advanced editor like Visual Studio will actually help you understand what you're looking at...for instance take this random piece of code:
...
Well, with a name like Linus on a guy from Sweden, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a *nix guy who hasn't used Visual Studio much though.
If anything, you're proving his case. You think your color scheme is nicer looking...so what? How does it actually improve your ability to code in a tangible way? That was his whole point. And the ad hominem attack about being a "*nix guy" just makes you look stupid.
Anonymous
Thu 30-Jul-2020 10:57
Thu 30-Jul-2020 10:57
This is just stupid.
E.g. "market" word in English will mean same irrespective of the book your read. But in code this word can take many forms. This is where syntax highlighting helps you give that extra information.
E.g. "market" word in English will mean same irrespective of the book your read. But in code this word can take many forms. This is where syntax highlighting helps you give that extra information.
Anonymous
Mon 7-Sep-2020 00:02
Mon 7-Sep-2020 00:02
in my opinion, the most important for a feature is not to be objectively « good » or « bad » but to make you comfortable !
And syntax highlighting makes me comfortable so i use it ! I tried as you suggested to use a 2 colors syntax highlighting, but I don’t feel comfortable :(
The other thing is that you mostly consider the thing in C, that is one language. I find syntax highlighting particularly handy with Laney languages like python, lua, etc. But I won’t use it that much for C, APL, J or BASIC ! That comes from the Main ideas of each language : c is really low level so you don’t have that much improvement with syntax highlighting while python has a lot of different features and you sometimes need to differentiate them. For example, I feel comfortable to have a color for python keywords because it helps to differentiate them from a variable...
My point of view is that everything depends of what you first learnt and what you use the most : I’m quite sure that somebody that learned to read English with colors like you suggested would prefer to read with colors than without...
And syntax highlighting makes me comfortable so i use it ! I tried as you suggested to use a 2 colors syntax highlighting, but I don’t feel comfortable :(
The other thing is that you mostly consider the thing in C, that is one language. I find syntax highlighting particularly handy with Laney languages like python, lua, etc. But I won’t use it that much for C, APL, J or BASIC ! That comes from the Main ideas of each language : c is really low level so you don’t have that much improvement with syntax highlighting while python has a lot of different features and you sometimes need to differentiate them. For example, I feel comfortable to have a color for python keywords because it helps to differentiate them from a variable...
My point of view is that everything depends of what you first learnt and what you use the most : I’m quite sure that somebody that learned to read English with colors like you suggested would prefer to read with colors than without...
Astara
Astara
Wed 7-Oct-2020 15:52
Astara
Wed 7-Oct-2020 15:52
Issues with your black & white view of syntax coloring:
* "do you rely on syntax highlighting?" Loaded question.
I learned programming long before color terminals, so it is obvious that I don't rely on it, but I do use syntax highlighting and prefer working with a color scheme, usually of my own design.
When you are _writing_ code, you are converting from design (content) to a semantic+syntactic form that communicates your idea to the computer. You might as well ask if you rely on ascii text to program rather than programming in binary.
At the point of writing, your first job is to create a syntactically valid representation of your content, followed by a semantically valid format. The color significantly aids in writing syntactically valid code, and to a lesser extent, semantically valid code. It doesn't help create content, but aids in weeding out mistakes in converting from 'design' or content to some format the machine will understand.
That's it and that's why it was created -- it may be used for other things but its primary benefit is in ensuring your syntactic and semantic translation is valid.
It immediately helps weed out many errors that would otherwise require at least, one roundtrip through the compiler (perhaps many depending on the compiler and how well it recovers from errors and can continue useful notations for other problems.
Then you go into created situations where color can get in the way. In regards to that, if you don't intimately know the coloring scheme, it will just be noise.
You compare code which has strict syntactic and semantic rules with written language which is very lax and has never been written primarily for the benefit of a computer need to understand and parse the code. For that matter, the computer usually won't see the coloring -- so it color is usually not written to help comprehension except in teaching situations.
Syntax highlighting is ONLY meant for experienced programmers who know its meaning and place. Newbies won't know your color scheme, neither will other those trying to read it.
If syntax highlighting doesn't help you in writing code. Don't use it.
If your eyes automatically detect a mismatched number of syntax elements, you don't need it. But few people have that talent, anymore than they have the talent to program in binary.
They rely on crutches to speed up translation into machine code.
FWIW, looking at code in a foreign color scheme can be disconcerting as well as slowing someone else down.
That's why you really need to find your own color style that assists you.
The same can be said for code format, spaces v. tabs, and using invisible characters vs. brackets as syntax elements.
Thinking that 1 format is best for everyone is simply naive. Forcing an unfamiliar format on someone will lower their productivity and increase errors in the code as they are constantly needing to devote some part of their brain to translate into a foreign format.
Of note -- those who don't understand and speak your own language, natively, often are are perceived as less intelligent (a bit more slow) -- because their brain always has to devote some of its bandwidth to translation.
So the best coding method is one that can be adjusted to the programmers own style -- *programatically*.
Cheers!
* "do you rely on syntax highlighting?" Loaded question.
I learned programming long before color terminals, so it is obvious that I don't rely on it, but I do use syntax highlighting and prefer working with a color scheme, usually of my own design.
When you are _writing_ code, you are converting from design (content) to a semantic+syntactic form that communicates your idea to the computer. You might as well ask if you rely on ascii text to program rather than programming in binary.
At the point of writing, your first job is to create a syntactically valid representation of your content, followed by a semantically valid format. The color significantly aids in writing syntactically valid code, and to a lesser extent, semantically valid code. It doesn't help create content, but aids in weeding out mistakes in converting from 'design' or content to some format the machine will understand.
That's it and that's why it was created -- it may be used for other things but its primary benefit is in ensuring your syntactic and semantic translation is valid.
It immediately helps weed out many errors that would otherwise require at least, one roundtrip through the compiler (perhaps many depending on the compiler and how well it recovers from errors and can continue useful notations for other problems.
Then you go into created situations where color can get in the way. In regards to that, if you don't intimately know the coloring scheme, it will just be noise.
You compare code which has strict syntactic and semantic rules with written language which is very lax and has never been written primarily for the benefit of a computer need to understand and parse the code. For that matter, the computer usually won't see the coloring -- so it color is usually not written to help comprehension except in teaching situations.
Syntax highlighting is ONLY meant for experienced programmers who know its meaning and place. Newbies won't know your color scheme, neither will other those trying to read it.
If syntax highlighting doesn't help you in writing code. Don't use it.
If your eyes automatically detect a mismatched number of syntax elements, you don't need it. But few people have that talent, anymore than they have the talent to program in binary.
They rely on crutches to speed up translation into machine code.
FWIW, looking at code in a foreign color scheme can be disconcerting as well as slowing someone else down.
That's why you really need to find your own color style that assists you.
The same can be said for code format, spaces v. tabs, and using invisible characters vs. brackets as syntax elements.
Thinking that 1 format is best for everyone is simply naive. Forcing an unfamiliar format on someone will lower their productivity and increase errors in the code as they are constantly needing to devote some part of their brain to translate into a foreign format.
Of note -- those who don't understand and speak your own language, natively, often are are perceived as less intelligent (a bit more slow) -- because their brain always has to devote some of its bandwidth to translation.
So the best coding method is one that can be adjusted to the programmers own style -- *programatically*.
Cheers!
ingvar
Fri 16-Oct-2020 17:37
Fri 16-Oct-2020 17:37
lft wrote:
My opinion is that having one person's lines printed in a different colour would distract the reader from everything else in the book. However, it is not equivalent to syntax highlighting, because it doesn't emphasize information that is already there syntactically. It would be a case of semantic highlighting, and in most cases a completely useless one, although there might be cases where it clarifies who is speaking. The same effect is used by Terry Pratchett in the Discworld novels, where Death speaks in small capital letters.Not only using smallcaps, but also (IIRC, and it's been a while since I referenced the source material) without speech markers, thus conveying the fact that Death doesn't so much speak, as eality shapes itself so that Death has spoken.
Anonymous
Tue 15-Dec-2020 05:59
Tue 15-Dec-2020 05:59
Natural languages and computer languages though analogous, are not the same, which also applies to the issue of syntax highlighting.
For example, a simple statement "James is running" will leave nothing vague about its meaning to most English speakers, whereas the same statement in a programming language will hold a vastly different meaning depending on the definitions of "James" "is" and "running." Besides the fact that both English and this hypothetical programming language use the same symbols to represent a statement, nothing between these two cases is similar. With syntax highlighting, information that would otherwise be completely hidden, can now be revealed, helping you better understand what the statement means.
In summary by your advice, you can go a step further and just start hand writing code rather than typing it, as you'll spend more time thinking about each line, and due to how tedious it would be to fix the mistakes, you'll be more likely to avoid making errors.
Actually, quil and parchment may be the best way to code because, you know, Shakespeare.
For example, a simple statement "James is running" will leave nothing vague about its meaning to most English speakers, whereas the same statement in a programming language will hold a vastly different meaning depending on the definitions of "James" "is" and "running." Besides the fact that both English and this hypothetical programming language use the same symbols to represent a statement, nothing between these two cases is similar. With syntax highlighting, information that would otherwise be completely hidden, can now be revealed, helping you better understand what the statement means.
In summary by your advice, you can go a step further and just start hand writing code rather than typing it, as you'll spend more time thinking about each line, and due to how tedious it would be to fix the mistakes, you'll be more likely to avoid making errors.
Actually, quil and parchment may be the best way to code because, you know, Shakespeare.
Anonymous
Sun 20-Dec-2020 17:00
Sun 20-Dec-2020 17:00
Wait a minute, is this linkbait? Syntax highlighting? With compilers, debuggers, code generators, visual editors, and so many other tools that are constantly abused or relied on as a crutch, you complain about syntax highlighting?
The point of this article is about syntax highlighting, not about compiler abuse. Syntax highlighting being popular among devs is not a big problem, but it is a problem, and to solve a big problem, you first have to solve the simpler problems. Syntax highlighting is one of those problems.
While I agree that some editors go overboard, I don't think you should throw the baby with the bathwater.
This article doesn't "throw the baby with the bathwater", syntax highlighting is a problem, not a good thing as the idiom implies.
Being able to step back and see the outline of your piece of code before you dive in again is extremely valuable once you grow beyond the hobbyist project.
Ad-hominem.
Anonymous
Thu 18-Feb-2021 18:59
Thu 18-Feb-2021 18:59
The type of syntax highlighting that is helpful for understanding meaning depends on the complexity of the language. For most programming languages the syntax is highly simplified, so simply denoting different types of tokens is sufficient to help catch the majority of mistakes like unterminated strings.
For English just highlighting token types doesn't help much. You generally already know what type all the tokens are. It's the relationship between them that gets fuzzy due to the much more complex syntax.
Which is why a "syntax-highlighted" English sentence looks like:
Well, I can't inline it. So just go here:
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/08/20/gregor2_custom-c8214189bda85b6ce9baafc8dc9f3143bcda6ae3-s1600-c85.jpg
For English just highlighting token types doesn't help much. You generally already know what type all the tokens are. It's the relationship between them that gets fuzzy due to the much more complex syntax.
Which is why a "syntax-highlighted" English sentence looks like:
Well, I can't inline it. So just go here:
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/08/20/gregor2_custom-c8214189bda85b6ce9baafc8dc9f3143bcda6ae3-s1600-c85.jpg
Anonymous
Thu 1-Apr-2021 12:00
Thu 1-Apr-2021 12:00
This fellow actually is right. When I first encountered syntax highlighting, I thought: wow, what a fine, helpful thing! But it is just not good - your brain does not have to work so hard to scan thru the code. But honestly, if you turn off the colour, your own internal conceptual processing machinery will work a little better. You will have to invest more mental effort to "read" the code - but you will get a solid return on this extra mental investment. I find I do - I can build the internal "picture" of what the code is doing better and faster. The pretty colours are a child's distraction. And there is solid science on this. Distraction degrades critical concentration. I recall a military study that discovered that the better pilots in the Vietnam war would typically disable many of their warning systems that were meant to assist and warn the pilot - specifically when the pilots transitioned into active conflict. In order to be really sharp and survive the "dogfight", pilots learned it was helpful to dial-out the distractions that were meant to "help" them. Syntax-highlighting is a perfect example of a silly "flashy colour" phenomenon that degrades and impairs human concentration. Don't believe me? Go into *any* supermarket on this planet, and watch how *colour* is used to grab and re-direct your attention away from what is on your shopping list. - MCL, Waterloo.
Anonymous
Tue 25-May-2021 06:41
Tue 25-May-2021 06:41
You've fucked many fake developers who always think syntax highlighting is the key to increase their productivity.
Anonymous
Fri 9-Jul-2021 17:16
Fri 9-Jul-2021 17:16
This is certainly an interesting idea, a "feature" that I just took for granted like everyone else and haven't given much thought as to why it even exists in the first place. I suppose on first glance it looks cool, and it highlights the various syntax features of a language, but it is just doing that: highlighting the language. It doesn't do very much to really highlight the code and it's importance to the entire program, and I agree with you, it is quite distracting and makes reading the code far harder than need be.
Anonymous
Sat 11-Sep-2021 21:28
Sat 11-Sep-2021 21:28
If you are color-challenged (as the choice of theme suggests) then syntax coloring won't be of much help, maybe even a hindrance.
Try asking around for a more appealing theme.
Or just stick with white on black if that works best for you.
Try asking around for a more appealing theme.
Or just stick with white on black if that works best for you.
umuur
umuur
Fri 25-Mar-2022 01:13
umuur
Fri 25-Mar-2022 01:13
I'm not convinced but really impressed about the convo happened under this idea over the years.
Anonymous
Mon 1-Aug-2022 20:10
Mon 1-Aug-2022 20:10
Syntax-highlighting is a perfect example of a silly "flashy colour" phenomenon that degrades and impairs human concentration. Don't believe me? Go into *any* supermarket on this planet, and watch how *colour* is used to grab and re-direct your attention away from what is on your shopping list.
Very poor closing analogy that ruined an otherwise decent comment.
The coloring of text at the supermarket is specifically designed to call attention to itself and distract away from anything else. That is its entire purpose. There is a whole business called "marketing" built around this concept, which is totally irrelevant to the convo here.
The truth is that this type of subjective argument is as old as time. Any type of tool or feature in a development environment will have its champions and its detractors. I can remember when I started coding (back in the days when Noah was still riding around on his ark), and this same type of argument was going on over whether VT-100 terminals should always stay set at 80 characters wide because the smaller font used in the 132-character wide mode decreased legibility so much that it was distracting and ineffective. Obviously it depended on the eyesight of each individual as to whether that was true or not, but the battle lines were drawn. And the lines continue to be drawn to this day with the arrival of each new technology, programming language, or dev tool.
So if you like syntax highlighting and feel it enhances your dev workflow, use it in good health! If you find the highlighting distracting, by all means turn it off! The compilers and interpreters will be happy with the code either way.
Anonymous
Thu 8-Sep-2022 00:41
Thu 8-Sep-2022 00:41
You've fucked many fake developers who always think syntax highlighting is the key to increase their productivity.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy
Anonymous
Fri 18-Nov-2022 10:49
Fri 18-Nov-2022 10:49
Great article. As a language designer, this is really useful to test the quality of your language's syntax, as well as the quality of your coding style. If you cannot recognise your code in the blink of an eye because of missing colours, then that means your coding style sucks and/or the language's syntax is bad. Like in C++ where the syntax is ambiguous. But even in that case, normal syntax highlighting doesn't really help, and you'll need a language server that parses and analyses your program in order to find out which colour to apply to names.
a * b; // is this variable b: a *; or is this multiplication void(a * b); ?
I decided to stop using syntax highlighting from now on.
a * b; // is this variable b: a *; or is this multiplication void(a * b); ?
I decided to stop using syntax highlighting from now on.
Anonymous
Fri 27-Jan-2023 02:04
Fri 27-Jan-2023 02:04
I have switched to no syntax highlight to try and avoid overstimulation and distractions in 2013. I thought I'll try it for a week and then come back.
I didn't yet. I don't quite know why, but I think it's simply being less stimulated with repetitive stuff with limited semantic value.
I'm setting strings and other literals to pop in a monochrome theme, boring stuff to be just a little dimmer, but not too contrasty, and it works really well.
I have a repo with several configs for VSCode right here: https://github.com/cognivore/minimal-theme-vscode/tree/hackerman
I hope it'll be useful for some people :)
I didn't yet. I don't quite know why, but I think it's simply being less stimulated with repetitive stuff with limited semantic value.
I'm setting strings and other literals to pop in a monochrome theme, boring stuff to be just a little dimmer, but not too contrasty, and it works really well.
I have a repo with several configs for VSCode right here: https://github.com/cognivore/minimal-theme-vscode/tree/hackerman
I hope it'll be useful for some people :)
Anonymous
Tue 28-Feb-2023 14:58
Tue 28-Feb-2023 14:58
I am in violent agreement with your post. Syntax highlighting for beginners who are learning a language can be very helpful. Once you understand the syntax of a given language, highlighting gets in the way, is a barrier to accessibility, and generally a bad crutch to get used to.
However, I fear we are in the minority of the general development community.
However, I fear we are in the minority of the general development community.
Anonymous
Fri 17-Mar-2023 16:20
Fri 17-Mar-2023 16:20
I can't speak as a true programmer/developer, I do sysadmin work in PowerShell mostly. But syntax highlighting is very helpful as a beginner/intermediate coder. It helps ensure that me and PowerShell are both interpreting the code the same way - if it's highlighted, it's recognized by the shell as the part of syntax that I intended it to be. If it's not, I've made a mistake.
I do think there is some validity to the argument against highlighting though, so I'm going to give it a try and see what I prefer. Thanks for posting this, and thanks to everyone who commented!
I do think there is some validity to the argument against highlighting though, so I'm going to give it a try and see what I prefer. Thanks for posting this, and thanks to everyone who commented!
Anonymous
Fri 31-Mar-2023 20:36
Fri 31-Mar-2023 20:36
I'm sure good arguments can be made against syntax highlighting. But this was not it. Especially setting up straw-mans (like: syntax highlighting is like training wheels, training wheels are bad, therefore syntax highlighting is bad) doesn't help your case.
It's easy to prove that syntax highlighting is not really essential to programming. Just look at blind programmers, or undeniably great programmers like Linus Torvalds who uses MicroEMACS, an editor which not only lacks syntax highlighting but many other features most programmers would consider "essential".
But it's also proven that it can help speed up development (see https://ppig.org/papers/2006-ppig-18th-hakala/ or https://ppig.org/papers/2015-ppig-26th-dimitri/, although one would wish for studies with bigger samples). The data seem to show that the more experienced the programmer, the less the impact of syntax highlighting, but that doesn't automatically make them "training wheels" as long as they still help.
Going through a compile cycle to detect a syntax error, is much worse than detecting and fixing the error on the spot. But I'd argue that syntax errors are not really the case for syntax highlighting (they can be pointed out by the semantic analyzer in a modern IDE). Their advantages are more on the semantic comprehension side. E.g. to come back to your `=`/`==` comparison: I don't know which IDE you use, but at least in my Emacs setup the coloring of the left side variable clearly changes with a switch from `=` to `==`, which helps to clearly distinguish lvalues in assignments from values in predicates (changing the coloring of the operator itself would not only have a barely noticeable effect but also wouldn't help much).
Between being blind and addicted to colors, there is a whole spectrum of people. So we can't make generalizing statements like "Syntax highlighting is good for everyone". But to make the opposite case, you'd need much better arguments and thorough research.
It's easy to prove that syntax highlighting is not really essential to programming. Just look at blind programmers, or undeniably great programmers like Linus Torvalds who uses MicroEMACS, an editor which not only lacks syntax highlighting but many other features most programmers would consider "essential".
But it's also proven that it can help speed up development (see https://ppig.org/papers/2006-ppig-18th-hakala/ or https://ppig.org/papers/2015-ppig-26th-dimitri/, although one would wish for studies with bigger samples). The data seem to show that the more experienced the programmer, the less the impact of syntax highlighting, but that doesn't automatically make them "training wheels" as long as they still help.
Going through a compile cycle to detect a syntax error, is much worse than detecting and fixing the error on the spot. But I'd argue that syntax errors are not really the case for syntax highlighting (they can be pointed out by the semantic analyzer in a modern IDE). Their advantages are more on the semantic comprehension side. E.g. to come back to your `=`/`==` comparison: I don't know which IDE you use, but at least in my Emacs setup the coloring of the left side variable clearly changes with a switch from `=` to `==`, which helps to clearly distinguish lvalues in assignments from values in predicates (changing the coloring of the operator itself would not only have a barely noticeable effect but also wouldn't help much).
Between being blind and addicted to colors, there is a whole spectrum of people. So we can't make generalizing statements like "Syntax highlighting is good for everyone". But to make the opposite case, you'd need much better arguments and thorough research.
Anonymous
Thu 3-Aug-2023 16:51
Thu 3-Aug-2023 16:51
omnomnom
spinnylights
Zoë Sparks
Sun 13-Aug-2023 10:11
Zoë Sparks
Sun 13-Aug-2023 10:11
I've thought about this article for a long time. A few years ago, I tried coding without syntax highlighting for a few days to see how I felt about it. In the end, I decided that I like the advantages of syntax highlighting, but actually I think it's worth turning it off every now and again to see how your code looks without it.
Like so much in programming, I think there are pros and cons for both approaches.
With syntax highlighting, it's easy to quickly spot things like text or integer literals which you might want to quickly jump into a file and change. This is more convenient in some contexts than others, but when I'm hacking away rapidly on something with complicated, finicky behavior involving a lot of parameters, it's nice to have them all highlighted so they're easy to read and change at a glance. I also feel like, in languages such as C or C++, it can be handy to have all the type names stand out in the code, like if you're looking at a header file and just trying to feel out quickly what types are at play there. Also, if you spend time picking out the colors yourself especially, it can really brighten up the look of your screen while you're coding, and I don't think that should be dismissed too blithely—if you spend ten hours a day coding or whatever I think having your work environment nicely decorated could make a significant difference in your mood over time.
On the other hand, I noticed while I was trying out coding without syntax highlighting that it made me more sensitive to the formatting of my code. I usually think about that a lot to begin with, but I realized then that there were places I could lay out certain constructs more clearly that I hadn't thought about because the syntax highlighting made them look reasonably clear to me. Since other people may not use the same highlighting scheme as you, or even might not use it at all, something that's easy for you to read with your highlighting scheme might not be so much for someone else. However, if you format your code nicely without syntax highlighting, the odds of the syntax highlighting making it any harder to read are quite low, I would say. So, I think it can be a good exercise on that basis, if nothing else—if you try to make your code very readable without syntax highlighting, you can be pretty confident that it will be readable anywhere.
Like so much in programming, I think there are pros and cons for both approaches.
With syntax highlighting, it's easy to quickly spot things like text or integer literals which you might want to quickly jump into a file and change. This is more convenient in some contexts than others, but when I'm hacking away rapidly on something with complicated, finicky behavior involving a lot of parameters, it's nice to have them all highlighted so they're easy to read and change at a glance. I also feel like, in languages such as C or C++, it can be handy to have all the type names stand out in the code, like if you're looking at a header file and just trying to feel out quickly what types are at play there. Also, if you spend time picking out the colors yourself especially, it can really brighten up the look of your screen while you're coding, and I don't think that should be dismissed too blithely—if you spend ten hours a day coding or whatever I think having your work environment nicely decorated could make a significant difference in your mood over time.
On the other hand, I noticed while I was trying out coding without syntax highlighting that it made me more sensitive to the formatting of my code. I usually think about that a lot to begin with, but I realized then that there were places I could lay out certain constructs more clearly that I hadn't thought about because the syntax highlighting made them look reasonably clear to me. Since other people may not use the same highlighting scheme as you, or even might not use it at all, something that's easy for you to read with your highlighting scheme might not be so much for someone else. However, if you format your code nicely without syntax highlighting, the odds of the syntax highlighting making it any harder to read are quite low, I would say. So, I think it can be a good exercise on that basis, if nothing else—if you try to make your code very readable without syntax highlighting, you can be pretty confident that it will be readable anywhere.
Anonymous
Thu 14-Sep-2023 04:24
Thu 14-Sep-2023 04:24
Relevant: This post: https://blog.plover.com/prog/syntax-coloring-1998.html -- apparently in 1998 it was common for programmers used to argue for and against syntax highlighting.
Anonymous
Sat 18-Nov-2023 13:09
Sat 18-Nov-2023 13:09
i code in python in vscode. this is ridiculous. i've tried no highlighting. and highlighting is a straight plus.
Anonymous
Tue 21-Nov-2023 20:01
Tue 21-Nov-2023 20:01
I absolutely agree with the initial statement and it is always the first thing that I disable in a new IDE/editor. I only make an exception for comments. They should be highlighted in something different than the rest of the code.
Anonymous
Sat 25-Nov-2023 23:48
Sat 25-Nov-2023 23:48
funny - after 40 years of programming, i came to quite similar conclusions and always configure my syntax highlighters to show the regular content i type with very little or without any color at all. i'm perfectly able to recognize what's a string literal and what's a function call without someone shining RGB lights in my eyes.
there are two things i'd like to add, though:
a) most default settings lower the visibility of comments, and this is just wrong: comments are way more important than the code itself, because they explain why something is done the way it is, and things the language is too weak to express. therefore, i always configure comments to be quite prominent.
b) i do find it useful to make keywords of a language stand out a little, because it makes it much easier the glean the structure of some module when skimming over it, especially if it's written by someone else.
there are two things i'd like to add, though:
a) most default settings lower the visibility of comments, and this is just wrong: comments are way more important than the code itself, because they explain why something is done the way it is, and things the language is too weak to express. therefore, i always configure comments to be quite prominent.
b) i do find it useful to make keywords of a language stand out a little, because it makes it much easier the glean the structure of some module when skimming over it, especially if it's written by someone else.
Anonymous
Sun 3-Dec-2023 06:10
Sun 3-Dec-2023 06:10
I just tried your Emacs plain theme, and it's amazing. As you said, we actually do not need syntax highlighting at all.
Anonymous
Sun 10-Mar-2024 18:34
Sun 10-Mar-2024 18:34
I found this post while I was preparing a rant against the seemingly random colouring of the editor I was using.
I find syntax colouring exactly no use at all. I can just about accept that comments should contrast somehow, being more prominent or less prominent, but in my ideal world they would be entirely separate, as for example in a markdown cell in a Jupyter notebook.
If you must colour something, highlight the keywords in SQL. In twenty odd years I've had problems owing to keywords used as identifiers—oh, I don't know—several times. Big woop.
And one more thing. It is a rare editor that even does syntax highlighting. They all seem to colour tokens on the basis they match keywords. So see my previous paragraph.
I find syntax colouring exactly no use at all. I can just about accept that comments should contrast somehow, being more prominent or less prominent, but in my ideal world they would be entirely separate, as for example in a markdown cell in a Jupyter notebook.
If you must colour something, highlight the keywords in SQL. In twenty odd years I've had problems owing to keywords used as identifiers—oh, I don't know—several times. Big woop.
And one more thing. It is a rare editor that even does syntax highlighting. They all seem to colour tokens on the basis they match keywords. So see my previous paragraph.
Anonymous
Wed 26-Jun-2024 04:18
Wed 26-Jun-2024 04:18
Seems like more and more comment gravitated towards non syntax highlight group over time. Which perhaps is right all along.
Me myself started moved from heavy syntax coloring to duo tone just as you recommended (comment and non comment tokens).
Never been so satisfied with minimal coloring. It allows you to smoothly move your eyes on the space of your editor (i use vim). At first it did feel lost as you are not aided by distraction of color, but overtime you get used to it and never again able to code with heavy coloring.
this is kind of debate that can only be resolved by approaching to sides, and let it naturally group together.
Me myself started moved from heavy syntax coloring to duo tone just as you recommended (comment and non comment tokens).
Never been so satisfied with minimal coloring. It allows you to smoothly move your eyes on the space of your editor (i use vim). At first it did feel lost as you are not aided by distraction of color, but overtime you get used to it and never again able to code with heavy coloring.
this is kind of debate that can only be resolved by approaching to sides, and let it naturally group together.
Anonymous
Sat 31-Aug-2024 18:18
Sat 31-Aug-2024 18:18
This article totally miss the point.
There is good syntax highlighting, and there is bad syntax highlighting.
If I had infinite free time like the author, I might actually write an article about bad vs good.
There is good syntax highlighting, and there is bad syntax highlighting.
If I had infinite free time like the author, I might actually write an article about bad vs good.
Anonymous
Mon 14-Oct-2024 10:22
Mon 14-Oct-2024 10:22
I can't believe how much this post affected my career. I can only notice it 3 or 4 years after reading this post
Anonymous
Mon 2-Dec-2024 21:08
Mon 2-Dec-2024 21:08
I read this article in Vivaldi's distraction free Reading Mode and I can't understand what the article is about. Should there be colors in this article... no thanks, man!