"Code Sandwiches"

[Nick Sabalausky]

"David Nadlinger" <see at klickverbot.at> wrote in message 
news:ilgvf0$2dmt$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 3/13/11 12:14 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Doesn't matter, he's still constructed a blatant strawman. Those three
>> things I mentioned, plus the fact that he's using maximum contrast, all 
>> make
>> text harder to read *regardless* of positive/negative contrast. And
>> *despite* that, he's still using those tricks in his attempt to "prove"
>> something completely different (ie, that light-on-dark is hard to
>> read/look-at and shouldn't be used). It's exactly the same as if I made
>> chicken noodle soup with rotted rancid chicken, tossed in some dog shit, 
>> and
>> then tried to claim: "See! Chicken makes food taste terrible!" ("But you
>> used bad ingredients..."  "Well excuse me for trying to clearly 
>> demonstrate
>> the effect!")
>>
>> Even if it weren't a strawman, it's still exaggerated and unrealistic - 
>> and
>> demonstrating that an excess of something is bad does not indicate that
>> ordinary usage is bad (salt and fat are perfect examples).
>
> Calm down, this isn't a religious war or something, at least not for me. 
> If you want to try to prove everybody else »wrong«, feel free to do so, 
> but I just picked that example because it neatly illustrates the effect I 
> experienced when I was experimenting light-on-dark color schemes in my 
> text editor/IDE.
>

I'm not upset or worked up about it at all (emotional state usually doesn't 
come across in text very well anyway, so it's best not to make assumptions 
about it). I was just explaining how that page fails to make the point that 
it tries to make. I realize you only brought it up to help describe a 
certain effect, and naturally that's fine, but I was objecting more to the 
page itself rather than the appropriateness of your reference to it.