Xref: utzoo comp.text.tex:21 comp.lang.misc:4169
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun-barr!newstop!sundc!potomac!saturn!xanthian
From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex,comp.lang.misc
Subject: fancy printing software text Re: tgrind, etc (typesetting programs)
Message-ID: <10975@saturn.ADS.COM>
Date: 21 Feb 90 05:10:57 GMT
References: <1990Feb20.235034.21698@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Lines: 24

In article <1990Feb20.235034.21698@Neon.Stanford.EDU> rokicki@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) writes:
[...]
>Make two copies of the same program, one printed with tgrind/WEB/
>whatever, and one just printed out with a monospaced font.  Now try
>and read each.  Which do you really find easier to read?
>
>The rapid font changes (bold keywords, italic identifiers, etc.)
>in the output of such programs as tgrind manage to slow my
>comprehension of the code, by just making it a lot more difficult
>to read.
[...]

Amen.  The same thing makes me hate the forced uppercasing of keywords
in Modula-2.  It may be easier for Wirth to read, but it makes me go
blind.  From my point of view, keywords are punctuation, and should be
as subdued as possible, so I can get right to identifiers, the "value
added" part of the code.  With proper coding style, most keywords are
at the start of a line anyway (including C's "{", "}" pair, sorry
K&R), and the few that aren't are forecast by others that are (for
.... to .. by ... do) so why EMPHASIZE them to the detriment of
readability?
--
xanthian@ads.com xanthian@well.sf.ca.us (Kent Paul Dolan)
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.