News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A case against syntax highlighting (2007).

Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by nikki-9696 on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @03:54PM (#11857277)
I'll keep it, thanks. My life is far easier with it. You are welcome to use Notepad.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by bpchaps on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:25PM (#11857504)
Ever use vi/emacs/nano/etc? Pretty sure not everybody who doesn't like syntax highlighting only uses notepad ;).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by charonn0 on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:32PM (#11857552)
Don't vi and emacs support syntax highlighting?

^Ocomment.txt^X

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by figgis on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @05:05PM (#11857831)
vi and emacs certainly support syntax highlighting. Nano does as well.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19444340/how-to-specify-s...

In fact the only text editors that I know of off the top of my head that do not support syntax highlighting is notepad and pico.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by bpchaps on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @05:04PM (#11857820)
Yeah, but claiming that zero syntax highlighting automatically implies Notepad is pretty ridiculous.

Does vi support it, though? I know vim does.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A case against syntax highlighting (2007) by pyre on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:50PM (#11857696)
nano supports syntax highlighting, IIRC. Not sure if pico does. If you're a fan of Motif you could even used Nedit.
[ Parent | on HN ]