|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs. |
Date: | Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:19:48 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 |
On 06/18/2015 07:29 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You're missing the point by calling them "rare". They are *not* rare; they are in daily use by the 99.44% of the English-speaking population that *doesn't* program.
Quotes are not that rare, but using a more rare characters would be even better, right? At least, by that logic.
The point is that these characters have better semantics from the point of view of *new* programmers and even non-programmers.
Native-English speaking programmers who are into typography, maybe?
APL.
Yep, not a markup language.
> Markdown, for instance, when rendered, only emphasizes code > segments using a special tag, which translates into a different > font face/color/etc. I don't see why we won't choose to do that, or > allow users to customize that aspect. That would be insane. Markdown (and ReST) do that because they, too, need to deal with the ASCII-capped lobby, or at least they still did when they were first developed a decade or so ago.
What's insane about only highlighting code segments with color?
But *humans* don't need tags, and programs are rapidly acquiring the ability to do without. I believe we should look forward to the day when that is the norm, and *get there first*.
I don't understand this response. I only mentioned tags because Markdown renders to HTML.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |