On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 08:30, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> 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. >> >> >
