Re: Feedback wanted: syntax highlighting in the LilyPond documentation

[Aaron Hill]

On 2022-01-04 4:19 am, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> Sorry to disagree, but fixed pitch is _so_ much easier to lay out in an
> editor.  Documentation flows nicely with variable pitch and fancy
> hidden formats, but for code (and Lily's input is a programming
> language) you just want the plain line-by-line ASCII.  It is, as you
> say, industry standard; and that is for a good reason.

As a counterpoint, Knuth's work with literate programming [1] showed it 
was possible to have typographically beautiful setting of code for use 
in print.  His style largely used proportional fonts though some 
elements were still rendered in fixed width to provide useful contrast.  
While Knuth's approach is not perfect for every language, I argue the 
vast majority of programming books out there really should have followed 
suit.  Editors (the people, not programs) seem to struggle with 
fixed-width typefaces, and typos were abundant.

Going beyond printed documentation, some IDEs like Source Insight 
enabled and encouraged programmers to use proportional fonts, where 
horizontal alignment was something handled by the system not the 
programmer.  Though I do concede this was probably a novelty, seeing as 
these days terminals and editors still rely on fixed pitch.

[1]: http://www.literateprogramming.com/knuthweb.pdf


-- Aaron Hill