On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. In all documents, you have at least two fonts: body and headings, often quotes, examples, listings, etc have an another font to make them stand out. In the new approach, the idea is that monospaced fonts indicate code (in browsers, debuggers, workspaces). It is a useful principle. > * 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? Syntax highlighting should take care of that I guess. I think that if the monospaced font is a point size smaller that the main sans font (e.g. 12 and 11) the excessive width problem or visual shock is much more manageable. In any case, I am giving it a try. > 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 >
