I am currently a full-time coder, as I have been for the last 31+ years. Yes, that means that I had a pretty fair amount of experience with mono coding environments, and a lot of code has passed under my eyes. Eyestrain hasn't been a problem for me, true confessions, though: I've used reading glasses for the past couple of years, but this is pretty natural given my age (I also read a lot of books). I'm guessing, based on the reasons given above, that Evernote's not all that interested in it, but I don't know for sure. For now, hopefully the 3rd-party options will fill the gap for those who want syntax highlighting. ?? This is pretty incomprehensible, or at least circular. Isn't "understanding the code" intimately related to "making code easier to read"? Why would you read code if you didn't want to understand it? Is there a reference for whatever it is you're trying to assert here? I'm sorry, but to me, syntax highlighting is mainly just frou-frou, and borderline distracting. Well-written (organized and well-formatted) code presented in mono is far easier to understand than ill-formatted, poorly organized code that's syntax highlighted. I can distinguish a string or a number by eye; I don't need them colored brown or whatever. And haven't I learned those C/C++ keywords by now? As I said before, about the most useful thing with syntax highlighting is different colors for live code and commented out code; I'd add live brace matching. I pretty much don't notice the rest of it. Visual Studio will tell me where syntax errors exist in my source code, right in the editor, live and without needing to go through a compile to get it, and that's far more valuable to me. If I need to know whether an identifier is a macro, global variable, method name, class name, etc., Visual Studio will tell me that pretty easily too. So ok, there may be a case for someone learning a language. But consider this: if you don't know the syntax of the language that you're using cold, how are you going to be able to tell whether that blue highlighted thing is syntactically correct in the code sequence where it appears anyways? Again, I put up the example of natural languages, which have far more complicated grammars than computer languages, and ask why we don't use syntax highlighting for that? Should nouns be blue (maybe bold-faced if plural), adjectives purple, verbs be red (darker is they're in the past, lighter if they're future, bold if they're perfect tense), etc? Natural languages are notoriously difficult to read unambiguously; how great would that syntax-highlighted prose be to read? Help or hurt? This is all my opinion, though. I've done a bit of searching around, and there's a lot on how to set up or use syntax highlighting, but precious little on how it actually makes things better; it feels like it's there on a because-we-can basis. The searches I used were "is syntax highlighting useful?" is "is syntax highlighting distracting?"; one article definitely against syntax highlighting, a couple of topics reacting to that article. Maybe because I didn't use syntax-highlighting for a long time, I'm immune to its improvements. What did I miss? Well my great grandfather never liked color television, but hey to each his own.