On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. Again, I was not trying to insult anyone. I do found value in your arguments (and any others, no matter agreement or disagreement), and I was not trying to become nor personal not passionate and definitively not aggressive. I apologies, trying to make a fun comment I made a non-cool one. > > > > > >> 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
