[Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

Sven Van Caekenberghe sven at stfx.eu
Tue Oct 15 11:18:20 EDT 2013


On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at 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 at stfx.eu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Excellent arguments !
>>>> I am with you 100%
>>>> 
>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list