- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Tudor Girba

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 :). 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

On 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. yeah, I know... and I'm ok with the discussion :) > And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was made. was taken essentially by me and others here, and after talking about this in the last hangout. In any case, I already said that is not a closed discussion :) > But I'll wait a bit for other comments. yep, I agree :) > >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Is there a Roadmap for Pharo 3.0 and Pharo 4.0

by Pavel Krivanek

2013/10/15 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:43 AM, kilon <thekilon(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> I really like the idea of roadmap. In an open source project people are free >>> to work in anything they like , even bring new nice features of their design >>> as long as they don't disturb the existing code. >>> >>> But the same people, including me, or even mere users , wonder where the >>> software is heading. Even an exploration ship , that sets to explore new >>> areas has goals. I would like to see in the pharo website a roadmap not just >>> for 3 but even for pharo 4. I know that Stephane has given a presentation >>> about pharo 3 roadmap , maybe you could link those slides. >> >> the problem with this is that we do not have a clear roadmap for Pharo4 (yet). >> How it works now is: at the beginning of a year iteration we make a list of what we want, taking into account what emerged latest year (both new possibilities opened and new/old problems that emerged). >> >> That gives us what we can more or less call a "next release road map". And is "more or less" because situation can change. For example we wanted a complete revamp of Pharo3 L&F, and we wanted also a complete migration of Morph to be rendered with Athens, and reality showed that is not achievable this year... so it will wait until next one (and that does not means at all that we stopped work on that area, just that the completion of the task will take more time than expected). >> So... what's the roadmap for Pharo4? No Idea :) >> What we already know is that we made a huge move forward in infrastructure for Pharo3 (starting by Opal, but not restrained to that), and now we want to focus in the tools (but without doing *just* that, because there are lots of tasks to do in kernel, modularization, cleanups, etc.) >> >> in general, for pharo there is a vision document that shows the long (really long) term goals. Now I do not remember where is it, but should be somewhere in the pharo site (probably not visible enough). >> > The problem is that I think we already did a lot of that vision. We need a new one. > I wish all our problems were like this one :-) -- Pavel

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Esteban Lorenzano

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 ;) > >> 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. >>> >>> >> >> > >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

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. > 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. >> >> > >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Igor Stasenko

On 15 October 2013 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) > > yaya... "you can use any spaced font, as long as it monospaced" :P but taking serious.. it is just about personal preference, nothing more. I don't see how monospaced fonts are any better than normal ones. I agree in only one: it must be a decent, clearly readable font. > 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. > > > > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Esteban Lorenzano

On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> - 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. >>>> - adopt a monospaced font for coding (right now Source Code Pro) and a non-monospaced for the rest (right now Open Sans). >>> >>> I agree with everything, except the monospaced font. >>> When, where, how was this decided ? I didn't see any discussion about this. >>> I would be very surprised if you, or anyone else of the key developers, used that font. >> >> mmm... there was a "subjacent" discussion for months, but I agree that we should use more the list. >> In any case, this is still an open discussion. >> >>> Anyone else having an opinion about the mono spaced font ? >> >>> >>> It is not by erasing all differences with other systems that we will gain traction ! >> >> is not about erasing differences, is about not been different when been different does not follows a meaning. >> I have my own experience to support my pov here: in my years teaching with pharo, I always had "lateral problems" with things that were not relevant... I would like to erase that, yes. To keep pharo been unique in the things that really matters. > > and Smalltalk is fundamentally different in its aesthetics and philosophy. Smalltalk was designed to be comprehensible by young people, not programmers. Just one example is the number base. Prefixing by 16r is more general, more powerful and more comprehensible than 0x, but is unfamiliar to most programmers. Throw that away and you end up with JavaScript or Ruby. I don't think is a fair comparison. If that would be the case, we should still use a black and white theme with scrollbars in left and those horrible and pixelated fonts (no idea if there is a name for them). Progress is possible, perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95. And I think erasing senseless barriers are closer to the spirit of the original smalltalk than stay immobile. Said so... the day I ask for a semantic or even syntactic change is the day you can all bash me like the traitor I will become (but I would like to have a literal format...) ;) > What most other dynamic oo languages lack is an overall aesthetic and design philosophy. Just read the intro to the blue book to remind yourself of that philosophy and consider how deep and coherent it's effects on the system design are. All those other systems just want to be liked and are afraid to be different and are just a mess. If you want to make pharo blend in go ahead, but you'll end up with gruel, and insecure gruel at that. > > Monks paced fonts. Bah, humbug. > > Eliot (phone) >> >>> >>> BTW: I don't see the any monospaced font in 30484, luckily ;-) >>> >>>> The objective is to offer a L&F that where visual elements plays well together. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Said so... well you still can switch back to the old and ugly (IMO) L&F executing some lines of code in your workspace. >>>> >>>> Same to fonts: monospaced fonts is the worldwide accepted way of present source code. Why should we stay different? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Esteban >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 08:30, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the issue that sets the new Pharo 3.0 look&feel uses a monospaced font >>>>>> for the code. It is only a coincidence that it is not set this way in >>>>>> the prebuild Pharo image. >> >> not a coincidence, a bug that arise when I tried to change it :) >> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have big doubts if this is the way to go. I think that proportional >>>>>> fonts are more natural for Smalltalk and without them the code is >>>>>> harder to read and not so beauty. I think that something like elastic >>>>>> tabstops would be much better solution. >>>>>> http://tibleiz.net/code-browser/elastic-tabstops.html >> >> Well... we can still iterate over the idea before release, but we do the best we can with the tools we have in the moment :) >> For me, is frankly uncomfortable to use proportional fonts when coding... is so annoying that I even use monospaced for lists, etc... but well, I accept the "current legislation": monospaced for code, proportional for the rest. >> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I can't imagine many Smalltalkers liking a mono-spaced font, I personally hate it. >> >> Oh well, I'm a pharoer, and I love them :) >> >> >>>>> >>>>>> On the other way, it is only my personal opinion and if you think that >>>>>> the Eclipse-like look will attract more new users... >>>>> >>>>> I don't like Eclipse ;-) But like Marcus says, it is just a different icon set. We want win any points on originality or personality though, which is a missed opportunity. >> >> >

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by kilon

Camillo Bruni-3 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?) > > signature.asc (457 bytes) > <http://forum.world.st/attachment/4714509/0/signature.asc> Guilty as charged, doing music and graphics as long as I do coding. I am pushing becoming a pro digital painter in the next 3-5 years. I have been to an art school last year, but I prefer learning alone. Goubier Thierry wrote > Not me. > > I'm often not impressed by the tools used by graphics designers. I can't > get my head around the blender GUI, for example. > > Specialized communities, tools around their own concepts and very > productive for the training they have in it. Not a good entry level GUI, > in most cases. > > Innovative, interesting GUIs ? Game, arts projects (not tools, results > out of their tools). > > > -- > 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 you should be , 3d apps are by very far the most innovative software out there and their technology is evolving so fast artists barely can keep up. The challanges that GUIs have to face are just pure insane, the level of complexity just overwhelming because of thousands of features that constantly are dependent on each other. To be put it short, 3d apps are GUI coder worst nightmare. 3d app are for very hard to use for users , power users , coders , amateur artists , traditional pro artist. They don't care about any of them. They focus on a single group , 3d artists. This is why you will rarely find any serious 3d app sacrificing complexity of the gui for luring in other groups. They are nuclear weapons meant to be used by people that have high depends and want to do million different things with them. The only exception is Scetchup. But even that is not used by 3d artists as much as regular users. Blender belongs to the mediocre examples of GUI design for 3d app, best implementation by far being Softimage XSI. That program is a seminar how very complex GUIs should be done. Music apps also have the tendency of large complexity with very solid GUI Designs, an example is Ableton Live. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/default-monospaced-code-font-tp4714433p4714547.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 15, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

by Esteban Lorenzano

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) 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. > >

Oct. 15, 2013