[dleslie]

Colour is a bad tool, even if it is an effective tool; a not-insignificant portion of the population has difficulties with colour. Then there's that not all displays render the same, and not all editors colourize the same. Syntax and layout are superior.

[a1369209993]

I am immensely opposed to the notion that something being difficult or even wholely unusable for a "not-insignificant portion of the population" makes it a bad tool, rather than merely a situational one to which alternatives are also necessary[0]. The same reasoning, applied to the not-insignificant portions of the population with more severe disabilities than color-blindness, would condemn very nearly every tool in the history of technological civilization.

0: And in this case - as you yourself have pointed out - happily available.

[dleslie]

The necessary alternatives, in CLI, are consistent and human readable syntax in a consistent and pleasing layout; and those alternatives are generally either present or not.

Moreover, they're useful to anyone regardless of their ability, and consistent syntax is easier to automatically colourize. Starting with colourizing is backwards.

[a1369209993]

At what point did I suggest starting with colorizing? I pointed out that[0] colorizing was sometimes so effective at drawing attention to important information that it was reasonable to describe it as needed, with the implication that coloring should be available in addition to other information channels.

0: for some people, which I perhaps should have explicitly noted, but it really ought to go without saying that no tool is equally effective for everyone.

[dleslie]

You didn't; and neither did I suggest that colorizing was ineffective. It's bad because when using other tools it's unnecessary.