How does that matter, if it's more _easily_ comprehended (faster, with less effort, with fewer mistakes in comprehension) with the highlighting, for any level of complexity?

Not choosing to use syntax highlighting is just wrong on every level. It has exactly zero drawbacks.

> if it's more _easily_ comprehended (faster, with less effort, with fewer mistakes in comprehension) with the highlighting

But this is completely relevant to the person reading. It may be for you easier with highlighting but someone else it may not be

Yes. And there should be studies that show that the number of people who are hampered by syntax highlighting is probably so vanishingly small sompared to those that are either helped or not helped (unhelped, but not hampered)

Syntax highlighting studies usually don't report on whether some subjects perform worse with syntax highlighting - usually only that they as a group perform better. But even with that evidence, it should be obvious that syntax highlighting should be either on for everyone, or on initially and off as an option for the rare individual.

https://ppig.org/files/2015-PPIG-26th-Sarkar1.pdf

That's just suffering for suffering sake with no fathomable benefit. Why not reduce cognitive overhead if you can get it for free?

one wonders why colors exists after all. why, we should know all about vegetation, streams, living, and non-living organisms so that their chromatic attributes are very unnecessary. monochrome for the win! i propose dark gray btw /s

on a more serious note: somehow nature choose to let us see colors, and this sense has been immensely useful to our existence and pleasure. maybe go could learn a thing or two from nature?