On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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). > Nonsense. When that black and white theme was invented it was ground-breaking (the first scroll bars, the first pop-up menu, etc). But that doesn't mean one can't improve on things. While I liked the simple text selection cut/redo scheme, the Windows separation of cut/copy/paste from undo/redo is much better and I depend on that now. Pop-out scroll bars are a great idea for conserving screen real estate it is flickery and annoyingly difficult to aim at when not in the current pane, etc. When that black-and-whitew look was invented it was impossible even to conceive of a high-resolution colour display because memory was so expensive. There's nothing in the aesthetics or philosophy that pushes against evolution, or taking advantage of technological innovation. However, there /are/ ways in which Squeak/Pharo has regressed. In particular the lack of menu memory is IMO a right-royal PITA. (menu memory is popping up a menu such that the last item selected is under the cursor, and hence selected. now many menus are created when a mouse button is clicked, there is no menu object to remember the previous selection. this scheme makes it very nice to group menu selections in groups, since e.g. a repeated sequence of cut followed by paste is a simple sequence of gestures moving the cursor one menu selection up or down to get from cut to paste and back to paste again). > Progress is possible, Indeed it is. And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not progress, it is regress. > perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95. > I didn't say it was. I said that systems designed with a coherent aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible than those which are not. And I think erasing senseless barriers are closer to the spirit of the > original smalltalk than stay immobile. > Consider the number format. Is that a "senseless barrier" to comprehensibility that should be replaced by 0x? There are many ways one could approach the issues of formatting proportionally-spaced code. Eliminating it, when its readability and elegance is so much better than mono-spaced fonts, isn't removing a senseless barrier. More like tripping over a low hurdle. > 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...) ;) > Stick to the argument, please. If this discussion devolves into the ad hominem then it'll achieve nothing. > 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. > >> > >> > > > > > -- best, Eliot
