Unfortunately I keep getting drawn back into this thread and it's starting to look a lot like religion or political or "which is the best editor" discussions.
When it comes to text editors, I do agree on this to some extent like using emacs to program tools or things where safety is no much concern.
But the reason why VS code is used by millions of programmers including NASA's software engineers is because they needed professionalism which emacs do not have in the standard front end which VS Code have. Therefore VS code text editor could be said it is better than emacs simply due to the fact of safety and limiting bugs. Matter of fact, if you worked for NASA as a software engineer, you are required to follow an intelligent standard, whether you liked it or not, you are required to use VS code instead of emacs. This is for the safety for their accumulated budget funding and astronaut's lives.
Is this religion or politics? I guess it could be both, some religions are not ideal as compared to others (hence why I do not believe in god) and some politics outcome is not great as to others (hence why we are all grateful for not living in North Korea). I hope you get my point with text editors.
Noone has argued that colors/syntax highlighting are not a benefit to helping write better code,
If you read through this thread, you will see many times it was said that "colors/syntax highlighting blinds or blurs programmers" and this will cause new comers to believe in this false conjecture. Also to point out the fact, yes, it is scientifically proven that colors/syntax highlighting helps better with productivity in writing books and used in many professional entities. Why do you think NASA's IDE have colors/syntax highlighting?
Quick remark: While many (most? all?) cognitive scientists and serious programmers agree that color-coding text helps with quick understand, we need to be aware that color-blind people exist. And that color blindness is neither a very rare disability, nor is it simple or always has the same symptoms. In general, visual perception can be quite different from individual to individual.
If we went to 3D user interfaces, we'd have to also remember that a significant fraction of the population has issues with depth perception. For example, in our household 2 of 3 people have badly reduced vision in one eye.
Good point, the way I look at it is that, not to force to fix a problem which isn't a real problem to begin with.
For instance, would you feel "safe" to allow a color blinded Neurosurgeons (I wonder how he passed his medical exams) to conduct brain surgery on you while using "anti-color blind 3D tech" to aid in brain surgery?
Lets say you're the CEO of Lockheed Martin, would you seriously risk your customers who buys your fighter jets where each piece costs one tenth of a billion dollars and tell them that it can accommodate color blinded pilots as a feature but better suited for people who are not color blinded?
Not to mention, the entire jet needs to be redesigned in which color vision is not needed to fly a jet, which is completely ridiculous since over 90% of the human population are not color blinded. Imagine a dog fight between color blinded fighter jets with non-color blinded fighter jets, which percentage of fighter pilots will press the emergency eject button more often? (Doesn't take too hard to guess).
You starting to get my point...
Here is a complete list of jobs that must pass a mandatory color blind test:
1) Electricians (I bet they love their mandatory wire color-coded protocols)
2) Air pilots for personal, commercial and military. (Reasons for explained above).
3) Doctors (They better know the difference between a red and white blood cells).
4) Police Officers (So they're able to quickly find the Sliver Honda which the runaway car thief stole from the parking lot few mins ago.)
5) Drivers for buses/trucks (Requires you to pass the color blind test, would you feel safe riding the bus with a color blinded bus driver?)
6) Railroad conductors (Requires to pass color blind test, for obvious reasons, safety.)
6) Graphic Designer/Web Designer (Professionals in this field are not color blinded for obvious reasons).
7) Chefs (Professional chefs needs to get the customers order right instead of using broccoli when cauliflower was requested.)
8) Professional Decorator/Painter (There is a reason why Leonardo da Vinci was able to make great paintings like Mono Lisa.)
9) All professional Railroad, Mechnaical, Electrical and Chemical Engineers needs to pass color blindness test. (For their public/customers safety).
10) I think it's now time to say that Software Engineers needs to fall into the "engineers" category for passing a mandatory colorblindness test. It would be ridiculous for color blinded programmers to program code which peoples lives are at risk. Imagine the color blinded software engineer does not use an accepted universal color coding standard for writing safer code in devices used for medical, aeronautical, kitchen ovens, coffee makers, cars, boats, planes, smart batteries, military defense, trains and etc.
We all know many bugs are not caught and compilers can't catch them all, however adding an additional layer of writing safer code is using syntax highlighting. This is why many
technical engineering fields requires mandatory colorblindness tests to be passed for safety of their customers and public.
So basically what I'm saying is that, color blinded people should not aim a career on jobs which requires mandatory colorblindness tests.
It's because only 7% of the population are color blinded while the rest of 93% can see color.
Making peoples lives at risk by making "3D anti-color blindness" products for the 7% of the color blinded population to work on
jobs which requires mandatory colorblindness tests for human safety is simply not smart and super unsafe for the public.
Color blinds need to look for another career. Maybe into these high paying jobs: Nutritionist and Dietician, Yoga Instructor, Content Writer, Professor, Teacher, Accountant, Insurance Agent or Lawyer?
hmmm? a quick googling gave me this:
Plan9 mice... Man,
Doug Engelbart was a smart dude, mice are his invention.
That is not entirely true that Doug Engelbart created the "mice" and it was his invention.
The
first person who invented the
true mice technology was an engineer named Ralph Benjamin (Professor) while working for the Royal Navy Scientific Service back in 1940s.
"According to a 2013 interview with Dr. Benjamin, he was tasked by the Royal Navy with helping develop something called the Comprehensive Display System, an early computer system that could calculate the theoretical trajectory of monitored aircraft based on the inputs of a user"
Then Engelbart came along into the picture in 1960s (jeez almost 20 years after) to make things more efficient and user friendly.
References:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...uter-mouse-20-years-before-the-Americans.html
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/03/surprisingly-old-origins-computer-mouse/
Or yellow. It's actually a very interesting topic; there is strong feedback between red/yellow/black being the colors of dangerous things (poisonous berries, wasps and bees), the development of color vision in animals, and the evolution of poisonous things. To some extent, berries are poisonous to protect themselves from being eaten, and if they weren't red, they would get eaten first, and it doesn't help the berry that the bird dies shortly thereafter. By the way, the tomato is an interesting exception here, as are some flies that are harmless, but colored yellow and black.
I did read up on this before and it is true scientifically that animals, insects and bugs uses vibrant colors and can dynamically change colors to show signs of danger and to protect themselves. It also protects the ones who prey on it from not dying in chewing piousness stuff. This is thanks to their evolution.
This gets really strange to me because most of these animals does not have the same visionary color spectrum response and mechanism same to humans. Many of these animals are mostly color blind or only able to see few colors.
So the question remains how can both humans and other animals are able to commonly distinguish in knowing not to eat "this vibrant frog"?
It turns out that the science to this gets really more complicated and that there is a relation which both animals and human's vision can agree on, which is that the color's intensity and exotic drawn patterns can tell all intelligent animals not to prey on it.
The combination of the intensity of the color with crazy patterns is what causes the danger signal on smart animal to not eat it.
The chosen color for that poisonous animal is determined for the particular animals sees better of that color since they prey on it too much.
So simply color based on freaky looking things in nature is not applicable to humans since humans do not eat these crazy looking piousness creatures and humans do not share the same color vision spectrum as to other animals.
It's only matter of color's intensity, patterning,
change of color and a specific color used which is seen best for the specific creatures. In essence all three in combination works together to tell all animals (including humans) not to eat it.
The reason why certain colors is used for "danger" in human life for road signs or bio-hazard is not because we humans see freaky poisonous things in nature and therefore we should also use those colors in danger signs. The color like red used in road signs is because our eyes are highly sensitive to it, it was never chosen for emotional properties. Matter of fact the red color of the stop sign never had a specific color prior the 1920s. They use red 30 years later because the paint was more durable using enamel paint which just happened to be in red due to cost, durability and availability. The red stop sign was actually yellow before.
Matter of fact many colors like fire trucks, warning signs and etc are being changed to a more scientific related color based on what the human eyes are better in seeing. This is why red fire trucks will be painted lime-yellow and are less likely to be involved in accidents:
Reference: https://www.apa.org/topics/safety-design/fire-engine-color-safety
Speaking of freaky colored wild berries, I remember watching a movie based on a real event how some radar specialist NASA scientist's kid ran a way from home to live in the wild and he ended up dead eating the wrong berries which he
precised where
not piousness.
The move is called "Into the Wild".
Moral of the story:
1) Don't runaway from home.
2) Don't judge the berries that are safe to eat in the wild based off of color.
Now you could say color do have emotion, this could be true based on graphic design and color theory (study of art), however its irrelevant when the "right color" is needed for maximum safety for humans.
Just looked at my python code in the editor: Comments are red, function names are green, keywords (like "if" or "self") are purple, and variables are black. Sometimes variables are yellow (looks more like orange on the screen), for reasons that I can't logically discern. It seems whoever designed this color scheme was not a member of the same party as my old high school teacher.
Those colors you mention which are usually commonly used in all editors are based off of common graphic design which relates to the arts of color theory. Basically the people who grew up reading colorful children books and cartoons learned to use those colors, and when they grew up as software engineers they use those emotional colors, which does makes sense when they created text editors.
However many of the colors used in engineering field are not usually based on color theory (study of art), its usually based on which colors humans see best at and will label that color.
