On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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. > 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 <[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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
