This is a minor pet peeve of mine so apologies if I come across as rude, but the word 'codes' is a linguistic error (particularly prominent in indian coders for some reason, but also common elsewhere).<p>The word 'code' when applied to computer source code has no plural.<p>This is in contrast to other uses where it <i>does</i> have a plural, like in "Nuclear Codes", or "Codes of conduct". In this capacity, it refers to codes as a collection of 'individual code items' (i.e. symbolic representations that map to practical functionality) that can be thought of as countable items in a bag.<p>However, when used to denote things like source code, or morse code, it is an uncountable singular noun. It is wrong to say "I sent a message using Morse Codes". In this sense, 'code' is similar to sugar, fruit, fish, etc. Note that sugar, fruit, and fish also have this distinction that the word has a plural form, but the plural is only used to denote 'different varieties of', as opposed to a large number of sugar molecules, a large number of otherwise identical fruit items in a basket, or a large number of individual fish of the same type.<p>Obviously you can't change the website now just to correct a silly grammar mistake, since that would cost money, but ... arrrgh.<p>Other words often mistakenly used in the plural when they shouldn't:
- Advice: Let me give you some advice (not some advices)
- Practice: You need more practice (not practices)
- Exercise: You lack exercise (not exercises - 'exercises' means a collection of individual exercise items, not an increased quantity of exercise)
- Text: You need to add more text (not texts - 'texts' means a number of text items, e.g. "this appears in many texts")<p>etc.<p></rant>
Whichever syntax highlighter they're using doesn't handle decent chunks of more modern C++ syntax (trailing return types, lambda definitions).<p>Honestly not all that surprised given it refers to C++ as "C and C++"...<p>The elsewise mentioned <a href="https://carbon.now.sh/" rel="nofollow">https://carbon.now.sh/</a> seems to handle this just fine.
I was using carbon.sh to generate those images, but recently I've switched to CodeSnap [1], a VS Code extension that does the same thing without leaving the editor.<p>[1] <a href="https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=adpyke.codesnap" rel="nofollow">https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=adpyke.c...</a>
I don't understand. Why not just take a screenshot of that bit of code? That way you get the proper font and syntax highlighting, and don't get the unnecessary fake window and background. If it's too small for a slide or whatever, just zoom in first.<p>Also, "Codes" is incorrect in this context, and should be "Code".
I do feel this is missing a few features<p>* Missing Input Mono :(<p>* Assumes I'm on a Mac (spoiler alert, I'm not)<p>* Fixed size window<p>* No adjustable line height
I expected something similar to Instacode (<a href="http://instaco.de/" rel="nofollow">http://instaco.de/</a>) with more options and filters and was a bit disappointed. I used Instacode a couple of times for nice images in otherwise dry blog entries.