[Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font

Sven Van Caekenberghe sven at stfx.eu
Tue Oct 15 15:29:14 EDT 2013


OK, so with Pavel's code I got my 3.0 image capable of showing the new fonts. Since I do respect those arguing in favour, I will give it a try - but I am still not sure why it had to change in the first place.

I think the progression from Small to Medium is skipping at least one step (10 -> 13), here is my setup for now:



On 15 Oct 2013, at 18:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu> wrote:

> 
> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <tudor at 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 at stfx.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> 
>> "Every thing has its own flow"
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131015/7b45c872/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2013-10-15 at 21.24.21.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386124 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20131015/7b45c872/attachment.png>


More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list