Interesting display, Sven.
My take on that:
* Aesthetics: the system has two fonts, not one. -1 if I review a
document with more than one font.
* Coherence / uniformity: A class name, a method selector has a
different shape in the GUI (proportional) than in the code (monospaced).
Are they different objects? Can I recognize my class name in the code
without reading it?
Regards,
Thierry
Le 15/10/2013 21:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
OK, so with Pavel's code I got my 3.0 image capable of showing the new
fonts. Since I do respect those arguing in favour, I will give it a try
- but I am still not sure why it had to change in the first place.
I think the progression from Small to Medium is skipping at least one
step (10 -> 13), here is my setup for now:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 18:28, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 :).
@Sven: the mail discussions that led to the fonts choice had you in
CC the whole time :).
OK, maybe a didn't pay enough attention: I knew it was about look and
feel and (a) new font(s), I failed to register that it actually was
about using a monospaced font.
I can't belief that you are surprised about the reactions ;-)
For what it is worth, I still haven't heard any solid argument for the
change. Even if it is just aesthetics and it doesn't make a
difference, there is still the question why we have to change.
Cheers,
Doru
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Excellent arguments !
I am with you 100%
On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Every thing has its own flow"
--
Thierry Goubier
CEA list
Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués
91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex
France
Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95
