Re: Feedback wanted: syntax highlighting in the LilyPond documentation

[J Martin Rushton]

Interesting Aaron, but I do note that the paper is from 1983 and didn't
catch on.  I wonder if there is a reason for that?  I've saved the
paper to read later.  Personally I don't know of a single language that
is happy with word processor output as source code, but then I may be
proved wrong.  Knuth seems to be addressing issues that have been
effectively bypassed by the rise of object orientated code.  I was
trained in a macro assembler (VAX-Macro) and am well aware of their
advantage for repeated idioms, but if they are just another layer on
the top they can merely double the size of the language to master.

In passing, although Knuth uses variable width fonts in the first six
pages, I note that as soon as he starts to give firm code on page 7
onwards he uses fixed width!

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 05:10 -0800, Aaron Hill wrote:
> 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
-- 
J Martin Rushton MBCS