Hi Igor,



On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:



On 15 October 2013 18:36, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2013 11:06 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
From:�Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>


Progress is possible,

Indeed it is. �And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not progress, it is regress.
�
perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95.

I didn't say it was. �I said that systems designed with a coherent aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible than those which are not. �

yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all together, sadly.�
What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one.

But the change is away from proportional to monospace. I think the sale must be made as to what does that actually buy us. How does this improve our experience, pharo coherence?

It seems that many of us here don't believe that it provides that coherence of UI/UX that your hoping to move us towards.

So when changing from what we have, it seems that it needs to demonstrated that the change is for the better and not neutral or worse.

I personally don't buy the it is less foreign to non-Smalltalkers argument. non-Smalltalkers would just move their distaste of Smalltalk somewhere else. Why do we have to use the image? Why can't I use Emacs, vim, Eclipse? Its all very personal and sometimes very visceral.

I have seen some visceral comments from Igor regarding Python. I could make some from the C++ I've been looking at.


ah.. python. yes, i hate their choice of using white space as part of language syntax.
That is really retarded choice.

Slurring the off-side rule with "retarded" is simply childish. �I should declare that I knew and admired the inventor of the off-side rule, Peter Landin, for quite a few years at Queen Mary. �And a more intelligent man you couldn't hope to meet. �The off-side rule is a considered design, it is used by lots of languages, especially those in the functional tradition (e.g. Haskell and Curry), it is simple and elegant, and for people brought up in that tradition I'm sure it seems extremely natural. �Like Smalltalk, these languages are concise, having a minimal ammount of supporting syntax for declarations. �The off-side rule means no open and close braces, and what a field of disagreement over code aesthetics that eliminates.

"retarded"? Come on, how about some thought and criticism?

�
And actually the roots of my disdain of it is same why i prefer proportional fonts:
i like text, where white space is variable and not fixed, and used to make the text more readable,
and ergonomically fit within its boundaries (like in newspaper column).

But that doesn't militate against the off-side rule (which doesn't have to be based on space count, or assuming tab with is 8, or..., simply needs to be based on the clear appearance of indentation, and there are presumably implementation choices there).
�
If for people it would be easier to read text printed with monospaced font, then it would be like that
long before first computer display appear in the world.
Therefore, the whole idea that monospaced font is more readable is moot.

Agreed.
�
I could justify such choice if we would have certain technical limitations (of the past), which forcing us to use
less memory and text terminals.. but we're not..�

Agreed.
�

And please forgive my outburst the other day.

We need to be the best open source Smalltalk-like experience. And not be constrained to other languages/editors/environments constraints and views on the world.

So those who choose to advocate for a change. Advocate. Make the sale.
Or else lets not make the change.

Jimmie

--
best,
Eliot