On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:05 AM, 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. > Smalltalk is much more than a language. It is also a class library, an incremental/interactive development environment, a set of tools, a number of graphics systems, a system for manipulating multiple media, and so on. Part of that is an aesthetic, especially when applied to the primary communications medium in the sytsem, text. So the apples with tomatoes "critique" is baloney. 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. > That's wrong. Few languages have been used to implement their own display system. Development "in" those languages is in fact, merely editing in whatever toolset the programmer chooses and not an integral part of the language at all. So most other languages neither use, nor don't use proportional or mono-spaced font. They are orthogonal to fonts. They are purely sequences of characters. Programmers impose formatting conventions to make texts that denote programs in those languages readable. But those languages are font-agnostic, and the conventions not integral parts of the language. Smalltalk systems are different. They typically implement their own tools, and hence can lay claim to coding in a particular font in a way most other systems cant; they don't do fonts. > > 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 ;) > Fuck off! Don't tell me I'm whining. OK, this discussion is the usual ad hominem piece of crap. Good bye. > > > > > >> 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. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- best, Eliot
