http://sdl.granthazard.com/exhibits/show/famous-synesthetes/...
I have some proposed a system with examples here:
Grapheme synesthesia is the most frequent type of synesthesia. I'm also a grapheme synesthete which is no doubt the only talent I'd have in common with Feynman. What makes this form of synesthesia a feature and not a bug is illustrated by research showing grapheme synesthetes probably have above average visual learning ability.
I can say that the sensory phenomena do tend to dim with age, but for me it was quite vivid as a kid, numbers, letters and words were strongly "colored" automatically. That did help memorizing things that schoolwork required, but in my case not tremendously helpful for solving math problems.
I looked at the PDF. Feynman's description is rather like my experience, though I'd emphasize that individual numbers and letters had unique, stable "colorization". IOW it's not that all numerals were blue, but that 0 was cyan, 1 was black, 2 yellow, etc.
Likewise A or a was red, B appeared green, b looked yellow-green, and so on. Combinations of letters in words would take on a meaning communicated as particular blocks of colors, that is, certain key words or phrases were readily identified.
Kind of weird to write it out like that but I believe it did make it easier to get through the rote parts of schooling. When I got bored sometimes I'd toss things around in my head, colors flying everywhere. The teacher could never guess what I was thinking...
Each synesthete has an individual sensory pattern, and syntax highlighting schemes are probably quite a bit different from synesthetic perception. Nonetheless what you show is very likely a good idea. I sure appreciate using syntax highlighting for code editing, suggesting there are good reasons to think it's worth applying elsewhere.
[1] For example, there was a non-parametric stats book that had a table with common conditions for each statistic covered.
More developed syntax highlighting which knows about methods or functions that are in scope vs out of scope, variabkes that sre not defined in this scope, etc, are another layer of utility.
I get used to "for" being a certain shade of blue. When it is not blue, there is something wrong. If it is green, I have an unclosed string somewhere. If it is red, I have an unclosed block interfering with scope. If it is underlined, I have put the "for" where the parser was expecting an identifier.
Bracket and parenthesis highlighting alone is invaluable.
My style is Obsidian, with a dark background, yellow/orange quoted text, blue variables, grey comments, bold white operators, white block comments. Ported from VI to N++ for a unified experience.
That's kind of interesting, now that I think about it. I wonder if in other languages I'd prefer coding in one color but with all errors and open brackets in red. Does anyone know something like this for Vim?
The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/a-bett...
NPR: http://www.wnyc.org/story/eureka-moment-makes-reading-easier...