Begin forwarded message:
> From: Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] default monospaced code font > Date: October 15, 2013 5:37:33 PM GMT+02:00 > To: Pharo Development List <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Pharo Development List <[email protected]> > > > > > 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. yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all together, sadly. What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one. > > 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. I was doing a joke, I'm sorry if it was not interpreted like that. But the think is I do not think the number example applies, because changing a font is not the same as changing syntax. I would disagree with changing syntax because I find smalltalk beauty and coherent, which is something that I do not see in the rest of the system. I think we agree in the objective of bring coherence to Pharo, probably not in the ways of doing it :) > > > 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
