|
|
|
|
|
|
by seanmcdirmid
4062 days ago
|
|
|
> Structured editing is much, much, MUCH better suited for programming than plain text. Syntax preservation and source-display separation are game changers, and they are not the only benefits. You can do a lot of things with a parser and a rich code editor...e.g. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/liveprogramming... Parsing is just a detail, if you can get it right, you don't necessarily need a structured or projected text editor. And its not even the "big" detail, which would definitely be type checking, and structural isn't going to help you much there (that is, if you want any kind of fluidity). |
|
|
The large screenshot[0] is a textbook example of structured editor, but the cursor moves around as if it was text. It looks like the document is modeled as a combination of complete structures plus a few incomplete pieces of text. That's interesting because you get the benefits of structured display without paying for structured input.
However, I'm not sure I would use this. It's not clear how to call the Δ function, for example. You can consult the manual or ctrl+c the character, but that's not desirable. Also, does erasing the dot after ≱ yield ≥ or ≯?
I do like structured input. You type an awful lot less and there's no meddling with commas and parenthesis. The learning curve is tough, but Vim users are here to prove people are willing. If structured editing lives up to the hype, of course.
Anyway, I'm always glad to see research in this area.
[0] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/liveprogramming...