On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:53, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/10/15 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 ;) > > I started this thread because I tried the fonts and I discovered that > something really bad happened to my eyes. Suddenly I had real problems > to read the code. Above all it was much harder to me to see borders of > keyword messages. Lines started to be much wider and it was harder to > see them at once, their structure, blocks etc. Moreover, I had the > feeling that code I'm looking at is not Smalltalk :-) > > I know that it's in my brain and how easy is to change the default > font settings. I have nothing against it if it will make Pharo more > friendlier to newcomers and I the new icons are good. I only wanted to > know if others the same brain disability :-) It's interesting that I > edit Smalltalk in text files with monospaced font quite often. Exactly, that is well put. Pharo/Smalltalk prefers long message names, class names, etc… Hence being able to more on one line is a case to optimise for. > To try the settings from the new theme eval this: > > SourceCodeProRegular new install. > OpenSansRegular new install. > FreeTypeFontProvider current updateFromSystem. > SourceCodeFonts setSourceCodeFonts: 10. > > -- Pavel > >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
