|
|
|
|
|
by kbenson
2584 days ago
|
|
I never made an argument about the Rust project assuming that. I'm talking about people using the availability syntax highlighting to dismiss a negative aspect of a possible choice. I was making that argument in general, but spurred by a specific comment here. I used the context of the Rust community discussion as an example, but never did I assume Rust was using this as a metric (just noting that it has been put forth in arguments from the community). My argument at this point (as illustrated by the Rust discussion) is simply: - Rust/rustc takes in unicode text as source - Since it has no knowledge at the source level of syntax highlighting, using that to mitigate the downside of a language level syntax for a feature is problematic - We as the public should keep that in mind when discussing the relative merits of one possible implementation or another of a feature. That's not denigrating or assuming Rust actually did this, it's a note about the community level discussion and how some people approached it, as evidenced by a very specific comment in this thread, and how I thought it had some problems when applied to language level decisions. |
|
I guess I'm just so tired of folks piping up with the "not everyone uses syntax highlighting" crap almost every single time anyone even hints at the notion that syntax highlighting can help a particular piece of syntax. I guess you're probably tired of the opposite.