[dllthomas]

I think it's totally reasonable to judge a road surface based on how effective it is, in practice, with the kinds of traffic that will be travelling on it. Traction control is a part of that landscape. Designing with awareness of syntax highlighting makes sense. But we should also keep an awareness that it won't always be there.

[kbenson]

> I think it's totally reasonable to judge a road surface based on how effective it is, in practice, with the kinds of traffic that will be travelling on it.

Yes, and if we outlawed the use of cars without traction control on certain roads, then I would be fine with designing with the assumption traction control will be on. But as long as you allow older cars without traction control to still drive on the road, you are making the roads less safe for a certain percentage or class of drivers. I view that as different that just making the road safer for some.

> But we should also keep an awareness that it won't always be there.

Exactly. And this is why I think it doesn't make sense as a mitigation to a language level feature which will always be there.

Specifically, I think syntax highlighting is a useful feature and a plus for a comparison, I just don't think it works as a mitigation for a negative for something that pervasive.

All other things being equal, syntax highlighting abilities might push me towards one solution over another, but they won't make me ignore a problem I perceive with a solution.

[dllthomas]

I'm not sure if you read me as slightly more critical than I had intended or if I'm reading you as slightly more defensive than you'd intended, but I think we more-or-less agree: readability is important both with and without syntax highlighting, and tradeoffs should be considered in that light.

A nitpick:

> But as long as you allow older cars without traction control to still drive on the road, you are making the roads less safe for a certain percentage or class of drivers.

Probably. But if a sufficient fraction of cars have traction control, and we sufficiently improve the performance of traction controlled tires at sufficiently small damage to the performance of other tires, the reduction in the threat of being hit by cars with traction control will outweigh the increase in risk of losing control for those cars without, even before trading off risk between cars (which is certainly more complicated).

I don't think there's a direct mapping back to syntax and highlighting.

[kbenson]

> I'm not sure ... or if I'm reading you as slightly more defensive than you'd intended

That one. :)

> But if a sufficient fraction of cars have traction control, and we sufficiently improve the performance of traction controlled tires at sufficiently small damage to the performance of other tires

That's a slightly different scenario, where the change is to increase safety. Then it is, as you say, a trade-off. It could just as easily be a trade-off because material is cheaper though, in which case different calculations are important.

Also, it's important to be careful not to exclude important information from the calculation even if it's about a relative safety increase. For example, if you increase the safety for 90% of the people but decrease it for 10%, and that 10% is mostly comprised a population that is unable to switch and benefit (e.g. poor people with little choice in the vehicle they drive, as they drive what's available and cheap), you might not only be forcing that risk on an already captive population, but they might also be a population that is resistant to change that would mitigate this danger (they can't afford new cars and they can't afford better cars). Conversely, shifting risk to the wealthier (more elastic) part of the market might yield more of a net reduction in risk as they are capable and willing to respond to the increased risk (or more likely, increased annoyance).

> I don't think there's a direct mapping back to syntax and highlighting.

There isn't, we're getting into the weeds, but conceptually I think there are some interesting points that apply at least partially. For example, not all changes are felt and valued by the populations they affect similarly. E.g. not relying on syntax highlighting for a language feature does not affect a person that uses syntax highlighting that much one way or another (it will likely still be highlighted in some way), but it can impact those that don't or can't fairly heavily. If I'm stuck trying to review some bug while on vacation through some crappy online git interface that isn't highlighting code well, or maybe even at all, I'm going to curse the heavens if there's a feature that's easily missed or hard to follow in monochromatic output if it's causing me problems in my stressful moment.

Perhaps that's my sysadmin history coming through, but I want stuff to be simple, reproducible, and obvious. Complexity, fragility and obscurity are the enemy, and I fight them wherever I see them. ;)