Andrei's Google Talk

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:i3i2m7$i9d$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> But the editor I use (microemacs) has a fabulous feature, F3, which finds 
> the matching ( { [ < > ] } ) #ifdef/#elif/#else/#endif when the cursor is 
> placed on one of those. It makes it utterly trivial to find the mismatch.
>

Many editors will automatically highlight a match/mismatch without even 
pressing a key. For instance, I use Programmer's Notepad 2: Even 
out-of-the-box, if you place the cursor on a ( { [ ] } ), in a ddoc comment 
or anywhere else, then both that character and the matching one will turn 
bold and blue. If there isn't a matching one, then the one under the cursor 
turns bold and red. That's helped me many times.

> BTW, back when the doc was in HTML, it was absolutely rife with mismatched 
> HTML open and close tags. The fact that browsers would render it anyway I 
> did not regard as a feature.

My opinion on that has changed somewhat over the years. Originally, my 
opinion was "Huh? That seems dumb." Now I consider it one of the stupidest, 
most colossal, and most painful blunders of the 1990's.

>
> The other feature of the macro method is, obviously, that they can be 
> customized to generate all sorts of things. I believe that candydoc relies 
> on that.

Many web monkeys would probably argue "That's what CSS is for!" But, of 
course, CSS is shit for layouts. Doubly-so for non-fixed-width layouts. 
About the only thing it doesn't suck for is formatting, but even that could 
be better (ex: Is there *any* consistent logic to what's "font-" and what's 
"text-"?).

And I'll see your "HTML/XML syntax is a horrid verbose mess", and raise you 
a "(X)HTML's shittiness extends far beyond the syntax."