October 2013 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Esteban Lorenzano

On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Sorry, not been following the thread but is there really a problem? > Code font is specifiable in settings. Guess we are all just arguing about what the default may be... exactly :) > > Regards, Gary > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nicolas Cellier > To: Pharo Development List > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:42 PM > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font > > Pushing the newcomers argument: if newcomers are used to using if then else and switch case, why did you deprecate usage caseOf:? > If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs) plugin? > > I saw very good arguments for proportional: more readable/natural/more text on the line... > So I'm inlne with Pavel, > > Is there any argument for fixed space (but the hypothetical newcomer). > There are some times when we must educate rather than imitate. > > > 2013/10/15 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif fonts for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code fonts for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the look of them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :). > > > > @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC the whole time :). > > OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and feel and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was about using a monospaced font. > > I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) > > For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a difference, there is still the question why we have to change. > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> except that it is not accurate :) > > >>> > > >>> - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems (it is a decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for example, for comments) > > >>> - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no matter if you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not true that you lose all of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) > > >> > > >> Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a monospaced font. It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way to look at it is: 99.99 % of the world use proportional fonts. > > >> > > >> BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ hard to get this passed ;-) > > >> > > >> Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do not scare newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. > > > not taken. > > > and non sense. > > > idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. > > > Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about the same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with tomatoes. > > > > > > I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... every other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. > > > yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, sorry... we "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to coding for me. > > > > > > and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me *alone* who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at least wait to see the fonts before start the bashing ;) > > > > Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. > > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was made. > > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. > > > > >>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Excellent arguments ! > > >>>> I am with you 100% > > >>>> > > >>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any fonts, i was always switching to variable-spaced font > > >>>>> for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo here, it was C and Pascal those days :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that you format code and it looks perfect, > > >>>>> but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it uses other font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. > > >>>>> Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before first computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came > > >>>>> to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right saying that before first digital printers there was not such thing as monospaced > > >>>>> fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want to waste space on front page of your newspaper by aligning glyphs to some virtual grid. > > >>>>> More than that, it works well only if you using same font size and no bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use variants or different font size, > > >>>>> all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. > > >>>>> That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be forced to not use bold/italic variants, or different font size (for instance, > > >>>>> i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where comments using different font size, or where method name uses bigger font size etc). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>> Igor Stasenko. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow"

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Esteban Lorenzano

OT: Call for politeness. Please people, keep the discussion constructively, I'm the first of apologies for/whe crossing the line. All opinions are relevant, every disagreement can put us a step closer to a consensus if we try to stay cool :) On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Camille Teruel <camille.teruel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 15 oct. 2013, at 14:46, Camillo Bruni wrote: > >> processing.org uses monospaced font, these are the art guys that have more sense graphics >> than any one this mailinglist >> (BTW, how many of you have visited an art school?) > > Me, many times. > And surprisingly, most people there will tell you that (today's) art is not concerned with aesthetics :) > >> >> Besides Smalltalk, I don't know any other language that would use proportial fonts. >> >> After that, anybody who really knows how to use Pharo can modify it. >> The newcomer is the only one you target... >> >> On 2013-10-15, at 13:57, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: >>> Interesting discussion. I'll raise a few issues. >>> >>> Le 15/10/2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>>> well... fonts and UX in general are two different (yet related) issues. >>>> >>>> UX is a huge an complicated task, and has to be taken very seriously if we want to succeed. To allow the appropriate/productive/happy flows in an environment requires a lot of effort and to put all the pieces together. >>>> Yes, I know, that sounds so general that is like not saying anything :) >>>> Here is the concrete: Put all the UX pieces together requires a lot of effort usually not taken into account. That's how the UX evolved more or less the same way as morphic: a patch over a patch without much thinking about the issue, just takign what is there and parching/extending as needed. As morphic, the current UX in pharo is broken: there is no coherence between tools and sometimes even inside the same tool (for example nautilus has different behavior inside the code panel than in the list panels on top). >>>> This is not the fault of any tool, just a consequence of how evolution was managed until now. >>> >>> Some of the thing most forgot is that when you do a GUI, what takes time is not doing it, it's polishing it. Making sure all small things play together nicely, and that you've spent days trying to get that drag and drop to work in the perfect way, with the right feedback and all (and focus navigation, and...). >>> >>>> So, we wanted a better UX for Pharo3 that included: a new Theme, new Icon set, and new tools that worked well together. But task demonstrated to be a hard to beat beast, and we just moved forward in small areas (there is for example a new centralized menu coming along with a new spotlight). >>>> And there is a prototype of a new theme and also some icons that where thought specially and that will fit nicely. But they will not be ready this year and after thinking a while (and getting feedback of people in community), we decided, for Pharo3: >>>> >>>> - adopt the glamour theme. This is a step forward our current one because glamour guys (specially Doru) continued working on it to have a really clean and simple theme. >>> >>> Is it the default theme coming with the latest 3.0, with that flat look? Hate it because it breaks one HCI guideline visual cue: feedback when pressing on a GUI element (scrollbars, buttons); there is none in that theme. >>> >>> There it looks like a step backward, coming back to the squeak look (which turned me away from squeak for many years: yes that's not rational but can't get over it. Pharo was the first to give me back the feedback at the GUI level) >>> >>>> - adopt the EclipsePack theme because is an iconset specially thought for programming that plays very well together. No matter if you do not like Eclipse (even if I think you are missing the relevance of Eclipse and a lot of good ideas that we could take from them), is about creating a unified vision. The old icon set (famfam) was not intended for programming environment and also there were a lot of different icons incorporated anarchically. >>> >>> Iconset are hard. But some of the Eclipse iconset are downright ugly (packages). >>> >>>> - adopt a monospaced font for coding (right now Source Code Pro) and a non-monospaced for the rest (right now Open Sans). >>> >>> Hum. Once you're set on a non-monospaced font for coding, as most smalltalkers have, going back to a monospaced font will hurt... I'm not even using a monospaced font for coding in C :( >>> >>>> The objective is to offer a L&F that where visual elements plays well together. >>> >>> Work on that is the real key. Not sure the theme changes are part of it, however. >>> >>> I value more a drive to get everything Spec-iffied: tends to create a lot of common look and feel because applications tend to behave in the same way. >>> >>>> And there is another more important (IMHO) objective: to offer newcomers an environment easier to approach. Pharo (and all Smalltalk-inspired environments) is already very alien for newcomers. We get a lot of power in exchange of that alienish stuff, but very often the curve of learning or acceptance is too high and people that could step closer to us are pushed away. So, my idea is to keep been as alien as possible in the things that make us Pharo and be the less alien possible in the rest: A nice L&F that can be feel as "some kind" familiar, is part of it. >>> >>> It's a good objective, but... There is something there; Pharo is different enough in it's approach that trying to match Eclipse won't work and may even disrupt more, because you will make it alike where it is not. >>> >>>> Said so... well you still can switch back to the old and ugly (IMO) L&F executing some lines of code in your workspace. >>> >>> Or a setting somewhere :) >>> >>>> Same to fonts: monospaced fonts is the worldwide accepted way of present source code. Why should we stay different? >>> >>> I wouldn't be so sure of that. >>> >>>> In any case, please give it a chance before drop it (once I can actually see why the fonts are not really applied) and we'll see how it works. >>> >>> I will :) But, I'd be frank, here none of us is a HCI specialist, and it shows. Sorry, but it does. No usability testing, no look into HCI guidelines, but, at the same time, probably the most advanced GUI toolkit available (Morphic), some of the best mind when it comes to architecturing GUI code (and code on average), and the most productive environment around. >>> >>> If you want to make it familiar, look into Dolphin and VisualWorks and copy that :) >>> >>> Thierry >>> -- >>> Thierry Goubier >>> CEA list >>> Laboratoire des Fondations des SystÃ¨mes Temps RÃ©el EmbarquÃ©s >>> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex >>> France >>> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >>> >> > >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Camille Teruel

On 15 oct. 2013, at 14:46, Camillo Bruni wrote: > processing.org uses monospaced font, these are the art guys that have more sense graphics > than any one this mailinglist > (BTW, how many of you have visited an art school?) Me, many times. And surprisingly, most people there will tell you that (today's) art is not concerned with aesthetics :) > > Besides Smalltalk, I don't know any other language that would use proportial fonts. > > After that, anybody who really knows how to use Pharo can modify it. > The newcomer is the only one you target... > > On 2013-10-15, at 13:57, Goubier Thierry <thierry.goubier(a)cea.fr> wrote: >> Interesting discussion. I'll raise a few issues. >> >> Le 15/10/2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>> well... fonts and UX in general are two different (yet related) issues. >>> >>> UX is a huge an complicated task, and has to be taken very seriously if we want to succeed. To allow the appropriate/productive/happy flows in an environment requires a lot of effort and to put all the pieces together. >>> Yes, I know, that sounds so general that is like not saying anything :) >>> Here is the concrete: Put all the UX pieces together requires a lot of effort usually not taken into account. That's how the UX evolved more or less the same way as morphic: a patch over a patch without much thinking about the issue, just takign what is there and parching/extending as needed. As morphic, the current UX in pharo is broken: there is no coherence between tools and sometimes even inside the same tool (for example nautilus has different behavior inside the code panel than in the list panels on top). >>> This is not the fault of any tool, just a consequence of how evolution was managed until now. >> >> Some of the thing most forgot is that when you do a GUI, what takes time is not doing it, it's polishing it. Making sure all small things play together nicely, and that you've spent days trying to get that drag and drop to work in the perfect way, with the right feedback and all (and focus navigation, and...). >> >>> So, we wanted a better UX for Pharo3 that included: a new Theme, new Icon set, and new tools that worked well together. But task demonstrated to be a hard to beat beast, and we just moved forward in small areas (there is for example a new centralized menu coming along with a new spotlight). >>> And there is a prototype of a new theme and also some icons that where thought specially and that will fit nicely. But they will not be ready this year and after thinking a while (and getting feedback of people in community), we decided, for Pharo3: >>> >>> - adopt the glamour theme. This is a step forward our current one because glamour guys (specially Doru) continued working on it to have a really clean and simple theme. >> >> Is it the default theme coming with the latest 3.0, with that flat look? Hate it because it breaks one HCI guideline visual cue: feedback when pressing on a GUI element (scrollbars, buttons); there is none in that theme. >> >> There it looks like a step backward, coming back to the squeak look (which turned me away from squeak for many years: yes that's not rational but can't get over it. Pharo was the first to give me back the feedback at the GUI level) >> >>> - adopt the EclipsePack theme because is an iconset specially thought for programming that plays very well together. No matter if you do not like Eclipse (even if I think you are missing the relevance of Eclipse and a lot of good ideas that we could take from them), is about creating a unified vision. The old icon set (famfam) was not intended for programming environment and also there were a lot of different icons incorporated anarchically. >> >> Iconset are hard. But some of the Eclipse iconset are downright ugly (packages). >> >>> - adopt a monospaced font for coding (right now Source Code Pro) and a non-monospaced for the rest (right now Open Sans). >> >> Hum. Once you're set on a non-monospaced font for coding, as most smalltalkers have, going back to a monospaced font will hurt... I'm not even using a monospaced font for coding in C :( >> >>> The objective is to offer a L&F that where visual elements plays well together. >> >> Work on that is the real key. Not sure the theme changes are part of it, however. >> >> I value more a drive to get everything Spec-iffied: tends to create a lot of common look and feel because applications tend to behave in the same way. >> >>> And there is another more important (IMHO) objective: to offer newcomers an environment easier to approach. Pharo (and all Smalltalk-inspired environments) is already very alien for newcomers. We get a lot of power in exchange of that alienish stuff, but very often the curve of learning or acceptance is too high and people that could step closer to us are pushed away. So, my idea is to keep been as alien as possible in the things that make us Pharo and be the less alien possible in the rest: A nice L&F that can be feel as "some kind" familiar, is part of it. >> >> It's a good objective, but... There is something there; Pharo is different enough in it's approach that trying to match Eclipse won't work and may even disrupt more, because you will make it alike where it is not. >> >>> Said so... well you still can switch back to the old and ugly (IMO) L&F executing some lines of code in your workspace. >> >> Or a setting somewhere :) >> >>> Same to fonts: monospaced fonts is the worldwide accepted way of present source code. Why should we stay different? >> >> I wouldn't be so sure of that. >> >>> In any case, please give it a chance before drop it (once I can actually see why the fonts are not really applied) and we'll see how it works. >> >> I will :) But, I'd be frank, here none of us is a HCI specialist, and it shows. Sorry, but it does. No usability testing, no look into HCI guidelines, but, at the same time, probably the most advanced GUI toolkit available (Morphic), some of the best mind when it comes to architecturing GUI code (and code on average), and the most productive environment around. >> >> If you want to make it familiar, look into Dolphin and VisualWorks and copy that :) >> >> Thierry >> -- >> Thierry Goubier >> CEA list >> Laboratoire des Fondations des SystÃ¨mes Temps RÃ©el EmbarquÃ©s >> 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex >> France >> Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 >> >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Nicolas Cellier

If that's some sort of intimidation: contribute or shut up, then I'll shut up. Ciao 2013/10/15 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> > > > If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, > > etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or > emacs) > > plugin? > > we're on our way, github we're coming. > In return, smalltalk is not defined by monospaced nor proportional fonts. > > So dear list, I am happy that you join this discussion, though invest your > energy wisely: > - have you fixed a bug today? > - have you corrected a typo today? > - have you reviewed a bug yet? > > If no, please have a look here: > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/45/Review >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Please contributors fill up this form...

by Jimmie Houchin

On 10/9/2013 6:34 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > I would like to get > contributors.pharo.org a bit more representative of Pharo. > > We should have Previous contributors and enhance the current list. > Can you please reply to this mail PharoContributor new name: 'Jimmie Houchin'; email: 'jlhouchin(a)gmail.com'; description: 'Use Pharo for personal and in house business projects. Working on developing Trading Software using Pharo.'; image: 'http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/faf295dadadd64dae51be0d62c1a2d9f.png'; yourself

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Gary Chambers

Sorry, not been following the thread but is there really a problem? Code font is specifiable in settings. Guess we are all just arguing about what the default may be... Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Nicolas Cellier To: Pharo Development List Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font Pushing the newcomers argument: if newcomers are used to using if then else and switch case, why did you deprecate usage caseOf:? If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs) plugin? I saw very good arguments for proportional: more readable/natural/more text on the line... So I'm inlne with Pavel, Is there any argument for fixed space (but the hypothetical newcomer). There are some times when we must educate rather than imitate. 2013/10/15 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif fonts for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code fonts for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the look of them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :). > > @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC the whole time :). OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and feel and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was about using a monospaced font. I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a difference, there is still the question why we have to change. > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> except that it is not accurate :) > >>> > >>> - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems (it is a decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for example, for comments) > >>> - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no matter if you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not true that you lose all of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) > >> > >> Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a monospaced font. It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way to look at it is: 99.99 % of the world use proportional fonts. > >> > >> BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ hard to get this passed ;-) > >> > >> Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do not scare newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. > > not taken. > > and non sense. > > idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. > > Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about the same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with tomatoes. > > > > I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... every other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. > > yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, sorry... we "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to coding for me. > > > > and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me *alone* who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at least wait to see the fonts before start the bashing ;) > > Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was made. > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. > > >>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Excellent arguments ! > >>>> I am with you 100% > >>>> > >>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any fonts, i was always switching to variable-spaced font > >>>>> for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo here, it was C and Pascal those days :) > >>>>> > >>>>> guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) > >>>>> > >>>>> The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that you format code and it looks perfect, > >>>>> but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it uses other font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. > >>>>> Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before first computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came > >>>>> to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right saying that before first digital printers there was not such thing as monospaced > >>>>> fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want to waste space on front page of your newspaper by aligning glyphs to some virtual grid. > >>>>> More than that, it works well only if you using same font size and no bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use variants or different font size, > >>>>> all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. > >>>>> That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be forced to not use bold/italic variants, or different font size (for instance, > >>>>> i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where comments using different font size, or where method name uses bigger font size etc). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Igor Stasenko. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MorpgTreeMorph enable/disable?

by Benjamin

You will have to do it yourself then :) I think you can get an idea of how to do it but looking a PluggableListMorph Ben On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Well, having used it a bit recently (issues aside) it seems there is no support. > Either visually or in terms of any potential input. > > I keep meaning to draw up minimum guidelines for UI stuff myself but (fortunately ;-) ) get distracted by work. > > Regards, Gary > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > To: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org>; "Alain Plantec" <alain.plantec(a)univ-brest.fr> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:30 PM > Subject: [Pharo-dev] MorpgTreeMorph enable/disable? > > > Hi, > > I'm working with MorphTreeMorph and I need to toggle enable/disable... and as far as I see is not implemented. > Any idea how can I do it? > > Thanks, > Esteban >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Camillo Bruni

> If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, > etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs) > plugin? we're on our way, github we're coming. In return, smalltalk is not defined by monospaced nor proportional fonts. So dear list, I am happy that you join this discussion, though invest your energy wisely: - have you fixed a bug today? - have you corrected a typo today? - have you reviewed a bug yet? If no, please have a look here: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/45/Review

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] MorpgTreeMorph enable/disable?

by Gary Chambers

Well, having used it a bit recently (issues aside) it seems there is no support. Either visually or in terms of any potential input. I keep meaning to draw up minimum guidelines for UI stuff myself but (fortunately ;-) ) get distracted by work. Regards, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Esteban Lorenzano" <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> To: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org>; "Alain Plantec" <alain.plantec(a)univ-brest.fr> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 5:30 PM Subject: [Pharo-dev] MorpgTreeMorph enable/disable? Hi, I'm working with MorphTreeMorph and I need to toggle enable/disable... and as far as I see is not implemented. Any idea how can I do it? Thanks, Esteban

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Nicolas Cellier

Pushing the newcomers argument: if newcomers are used to using if then else and switch case, why did you deprecate usage caseOf:? If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser, etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs) plugin? I saw very good arguments for proportional: more readable/natural/more text on the line... So I'm inlne with Pavel, Is there any argument for fixed space (but the hypothetical newcomer). There are some times when we must educate rather than imitate. 2013/10/15 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif > fonts for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code > fonts for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the > look of them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :). > > > > @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC > the whole time :). > > OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and feel > and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was about using > a monospaced font. > > I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-) > > For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the > change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a difference, > there is still the question why we have to change. > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > > > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> except that it is not accurate :) > > >>> > > >>> - with a monospace you can have bolds and italic without problems > (it is a decent one)... and you also can play with sizes (for example, for > comments) > > >>> - when you copy&paste you will lose part of your formatting no > matter if you have a fixed font or a proportional one (is not true that > you lose all of them... in fact I usually do not lose any) > > >> > > >> Sorry, but there are no sensible arguments in favour of a monospaced > font. It is just not needed (in Smalltalk). Another way to look at it is: > 99.99 % of the world use proportional fonts. > > >> > > >> BTW, I think whoever made this 'decision' knew it would be _very_ > hard to get this passed ;-) > > >> > > >> Maybe we should switch to C/Java/Javascript syntax so that we do not > scare newcomers ? Sorry, I could not resist. > > > not taken. > > > and non sense. > > > idea is to welcome newcomers, not to became another language. > > > Now... if font is *part* of the language, we could be talking about > the same. But since it is not, then we are comparing apples with tomatoes. > > > > > > I can say that no, 99% of the world do not use proportional fonts... > every other programing environment uses monospaced fonts. > > > yeah, I know "we are different"... but we still code. Ah, no, sorry... > we "manipulate objects", but that looks really close to coding for me. > > > > > > and yes... I was expecting a lot of whining (even if it was not me > *alone* who took the decision), but I was expecting from people at least > wait to see the fonts before start the bashing ;) > > > > Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree. > > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was > made. > > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. > > > > >>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Excellent arguments ! > > >>>> I am with you 100% > > >>>> > > >>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Since the days when editors was able to allow me using any fonts, > i was always switching to variable-spaced font > > >>>>> for code pane. And i am not speaking about smalltalk or pharo > here, it was C and Pascal those days :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> guess, what i would prefer in pharo? :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The bad things about getting used to monospaced fonts is that you > format code and it looks perfect, > > >>>>> but then you print it or copy/paste it somewhere else where it > uses other font, and all your beautiful formatting are gone. > > >>>>> Needless to say, that printing press was invented way before first > computer or digital printer, and all we know about fonts came > > >>>>> to us from the printing world.. and i think i would be right > saying that before first digital printers there was not such thing as > monospaced > > >>>>> fonts, because it is not economically efficient: you don't want to > waste space on front page of your newspaper by aligning glyphs to some > virtual grid. > > >>>>> More than that, it works well only if you using same font size and > no bold/underline variants whatever.. as soon as you use variants or > different font size, > > >>>>> all the benefits of 'formatting' using monospaced font is gone. > > >>>>> That means, if we employ monospaced font for code, we will be > forced to not use bold/italic variants, or different font size (for > instance, > > >>>>> i would be like to play with code highlight scheme, where comments > using different font size, or where method name uses bigger font size etc). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>> Igor Stasenko. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > >

Oct. 15, 2013