\nAs you all know, the Minions are in a never ending death match with dark Emacs themes. To them, there is no worse UI choice. I submit, though, that they haven’t considered all the possibilities and that there are, in fact, worse ways to abuse your eyes.\n<\/p>\n
\nCase in point<\/a>. I know that there’s a certain cohort that thinks such things are nifty but I doubt they get much work done. How could they? You can’t read what’s on the blasted screen without squinting and really focusing on the text. Just look at those screen shots. Why would anyone subject themselves to that?\n<\/p>\n \nSure, it looks kind of cool (for the first few seconds) but after you finish with the oohs and aahs you’re going to have to actually read the text on that screen and if your eyes are over 17 years old, it’s not going to be easy.\n<\/p>\n \nI know, I know. I’m old and crotchety and definitely not with it but really, why do this to yourself? It’s really just another example of the desire for bling that some folks are addicted to. As Vivek Haldar says<\/a>\n<\/p>\n \nWhat I don\u2019t understand is: why should you ever care how your editor looks, unless you\u2019re trying to win a screenshot competition? The primary factor in looking good should be the choice of a good font at a comfortable size, and a syntax coloring theme that you like.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \nWhat it should definitely should not include are glitzy features that make it harder to read the text you’re editing. It’s a text editor<\/i> not a text obscurer<\/i>.\n<\/p>\n \nAs the title says, just say no to transparent windows.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As you all know, the Minions are in a never ending death match with dark Emacs themes. To them, there is no worse UI choice. I submit, though, that they haven’t considered all the possibilities and that there are, in … Continue reading \n