Improve syntax highlighting in docs

[taion]

No description provided.

[taion]

@kentcdodds mentioned this trick on Twitter. I was going to write some docs for #3669 but realized I wanted to do this first.

(this is how I procrastinate from doing actual work 😑)

[kentcdodds]

This example isn't using jsx at all. Not sure you're getting much value out of putting jsx here :)

[taion]

I thought about that a little. The JSX syntax highlighting is slightly different for vanilla JavaScript, though:

// js
const foo = { bar: 'baz' };

// jsx
const foo = { bar: 'baz' };

Given that, it seemed like consistency in syntax highlighting was preferable to strict correctness.

And it let me do everything with a regex.

[kentcdodds]

Sorry, I should have added to my comment :) You're good :D

[taion]

I'm kidding too :p

I actually started doing separately using js for the non-JSX snippets in a bout of idiocy before I realized how awful that would have been.

[taion]

Going to merge this for trivial-ness.

[taion]

@kentcdodds Do you know if anybody has an issue open with npm to fix the rendering of "jsx" syntax on the npm website? It's actually not working there. I might have to change the README back to using "js".

[taion]

This doesn't look ideal:

[timdorr]

npm uses highlights, which uses language-javascript and doesn't support JSX. highlights doesn't use language-babel by default, which does have a JSX grammer, which npm would need to install and configure to get this supported.

Long story short, I would just switch back to js highlighting.

[kentcdodds]

Awe dang. Sad story :-( I guess the moral of the story is: use jsx for everywhere you expect github to be the only renderer.

[taion]

Yeah... I'll drop jsx in the README. It's still helpful for the docs proper... though maybe not if we ingest them into a GitBook or something.