On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Excellent arguments ! >> I am with you 100% >> >> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> 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. >> >> > >
