I kindly disagree :).

I answered the request of Sven because I felt the discussion was highly
unfair towards Esteban and I just offered my relaxed support. I see little
constructivism in this discussion and my actual arguments would likely not
add any value at this point.

Doru


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am in favor of using monospaced fonts for the code and sans serif fonts
>> for the rest of the things. I pushed the Source Sans + Source Code fonts
>> for the Moose image since half a year, and actually people like the look of
>> them. I am a bit surprised to see such virulent reactions :).
>>
>
> again, ad hominem.
>
>
>>
>> @Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in CC
>> the whole time :).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, 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.
>>> >
>>> > 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 ;)
>>>
>>> Well, it is not 'bashing', I just totally do not agree.
>>> And I would like to know who else is in favour, how the decision was
>>> made.
>>> But I'll wait a bit for other comments.
>>>
>>> >>> 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.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "Every thing has its own flow"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> best,
> Eliot
>



-- 
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Reply via email to