Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

default monospaced code font

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

105 messages Options

123456

tinchodias

Re: default monospaced code font

I have been using the Source Code Pro fonts for some weeks and now I have to say that I like them a lot.

At the first moment my reaction was bad but very soon I started to like them. Please give them a try.

Martín

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Guillermo Polito <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like those fonts, and are actually my default setup (+ the new plain them also) :)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent arguments !
I am with you 100%

On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> 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"

Paul DeBruicker

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by philippeback

philippeback wrote

Theming Pharo dark is a major undertaking (as colors are all over in the
most erratic possible way - for fun, turn the background of controls to
nuclear green and see where that shows). And trying to lake one proved to
be non useful on 2.0 as 3.0 has everything changed already (as Ben showed
me at one point).

I know this is not what you mean but in the Mac if you go to

System Preferences >> Accessiblity >> Display

there is a setting for 'Invert Colors' which is not awful.

inverted pharo colors

Ben Coman

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier

Nicolas Cellier wrote:

> Pushing the newcomers argument: if newcomers are used to using if then else
> and switch case, why did you deprecate usage caseOf:?
> If newcomers argument counts, shouldn't we remove text editing, browser,
> etc..., go back to file based development and create an eclipse (or emacs)
> plugin?
>
> I saw very good arguments for proportional: more readable/natural/more text
> on the line...
> So I'm inlne with Pavel,
>
> Is there any argument for fixed space (but the hypothetical newcomer).
> There are some times when we must educate rather than imitate.
>
>
>

Links [1] & [2] provide some good points both ways. I agree that we
ultimately want to educate - but sometimes its good to avoid educating
too-much at once. I think the point is that fonts are not a
"distinctive" feature Smalltalk, although Eliot argued Smalltalk it has
a tighter binding that other languages. Even so, lets not deter
newcomers on the basis of fonts before we hook them with experience of
Smalltalk's advantages. Before you consider glossing over this thinking
"it shouldn't be a big deal to newcomers, they should get over it"
consider the emotion evoked in this thread. One significant cognitive
rule of persuasion is "that you cannot use logic to argue a decision
made on the basis emotion". I think it is useful for newcomers to have
time to absorb the alien nature of Smalltalk without the distraction of
acclimatising to a different font regime.

Some interesting points I picked up.

* Most proportional fonts are designed for prose and only little
punctuation (which in turn is usually one or rarely two characters). The
C family of languages have lots of punctuation, which simply does not
look good [with proportional] and is harder to read than necessary. [2]
[and Smalltalk is more like prose.]

* [With proportional...] feel better about using longer, more
descriptive variable names (maybe because they scan better, maybe
because the horizontal size of the text is compressed) [2]

* All it takes is a few hours of trying to figure out why a search isn't
finding something because you have 2 spaces instead of 1 in your
literal, to realize you should use Monospace fonts. [2]

* With monospace you can select rectangular sections [1] Not sure how
well that relates to Smalltalk.

Now having tried the directions provided by Pavel to sample the new
font, upon review of a small amount of code, I quite like the font. In
comparison the proportional font seems too compressed. However this
could be resolved for the proportional font by making the 'spaces'
wider. (One of the central features of graphic design is liberal use of
whitespace.)

In the end I am sitting on the fence. Perhaps there just needs to be a
welcome screen that with a big switch easily thrown between the choices,
along with a couple of others like Smart Quotes that are foreign and
irritating to newcomers (and even though I sometime try again, I still
struggle with and have to turn off)

cheers -ben

[1]
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/5473/does-anyone-prefer-proportional-fonts
[2]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/218623/why-use-monospace-fonts-in-your-ide

Igor Stasenko

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Jimmie Houchin-5

Amen, brother :)

On 15 October 2013 17:43, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/15/2013 7:46 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:

processing.org uses monospaced font, these are the art guys that have more sense graphics
than any one this mailinglist (BTW, how many of you have visited an art school?)

Besides Smalltalk, I don't know any other language that would use proportial fonts.

After that, anybody who really knows how to use Pharo can modify it.
The newcomer is the only one you target...

Regarding Art School. No I haven't but my father-in-law did, one of my daughters is. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Not that either do fonts.

Has anybody involved with vim or emacs been to art school?
Two of the most used and fought over editors out there and they are as ugly as ... Yet their ugliness doesn't deter their advocates. Why? Because their advocates find value in what you can do with them.

I am very much in the proportional camp. I spend my day typing, and writing in proportional fonts.

One of the nice things about Smalltalk and any higher level language in theory is that it brings you somewhat closer to natural language. And in general most things we do in our natural languages is in a proportional font. And no, I don't believe we need a cognitive indicator which tells our brain that this is different. We are writing software not an article.

Once upon a time all or almost everything done on a computer was in a monospace font. Regardless as to whether or not it was writing software or writing a novel.

People who like monospace often prefer underscores and not camelCase. They also like 79 character line breaks and all other sorts of conventions created due to the environment they operate in.

Other languages do not have fonts. They generally do not have editors. They are quite different from the Smalltalk experience. We should not impose their constraints into our environment. Users of those languages choose editors. Users of those editors choose fonts. The language itself imposes no such constraints or opinions outside of community convention.

We do not operate in any of those environments. We should not feel compelled to impose any of those constraints.

Yes, I agree. We should not be different for different sake.
But, I find value in proportional fonts. Let me repeat that, I find value in the proportional font. Therefore I do not believe that using a proportional font is being different just to be different.

I and most people who are not explicitly placing themselves in this context, coding, find them to be more readable. Are magazines, newspapers, books, websites mainly in monospace? Most of what we read is proportional for a reason.

Yes, anybody can change their personal use of the system and choose monospace or proportional. There is great value in establishing a good community standard for the image. Not necessarily a standard that is catering to beginners current comforts. But one that is a good community default. A default which experienced Smalltalkers find productive. Then provide good learning tools to enable beginners to be on a path of increasing productivity. A beginner will often stay with what they start with for a very long time. So if our initial image is one that caters to beginners, then they may live their a very long time. And not to their betterment.

I think we should be comfortable with and embrace who we (Smalltalkers/Pharo) are. Not seek to change unnecessarily to conform to a different standard which was established based upon different criteria and constraints which do not apply to us.

I personally do not understand how so many people find Smalltalk to be uncomfortable or difficult. I am far from a pro Smalltalker. But I find nothing else to be as comfortable and productive as Smalltalk/Pharo.

My only thoughts is that everybody thinks in different ways. People are drawn to languages work like they think. And for some people Smalltalk isn't it. I know I find many languages out there to be less than pleasant and ugly no matter what font they use. :)

Just my opinions.

Thanks.

Jimmie

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Goubier Thierry

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by kilon

Le 15/10/2013 16:36, kilon a écrit :
> you should be , 3d apps are by very far the most innovative software out
> there and their technology is evolving so fast artists barely can keep up.
>
> The challanges that GUIs have to face are just pure insane, the level of
> complexity just overwhelming because of thousands of features that
> constantly are dependent on each other. To be put it short, 3d apps are GUI
> coder worst nightmare.

Yes, this is my opinion from looking at it far away. Not sure it came
out that way... Very complex software for power users in their own group.

Similar to, in my mind, hardware synthesis people (VHDL, SystemC, FPGA
developpers) and probably the EDA people.

> 3d app are for very hard to use for users , power users , coders , amateur
> artists , traditional pro artist. They don't care about any of them. They
> focus on a single group , 3d artists. This is why you will rarely find any
> serious 3d app sacrificing complexity of the gui for luring in other groups.
> They are nuclear weapons meant to be used by people that have high depends
> and want to do million different things with them.

Yes, that was my point.

> The only exception is Scetchup. But even that is not used by 3d artists as
> much as regular users.
>
> Blender belongs to the mediocre examples of GUI design for 3d app, best
> implementation by far being Softimage XSI. That program is a seminar how
> very complex GUIs should be done.
>
> Music apps also have the tendency of large complexity with very solid GUI
> Designs, an example is Ableton Live.

Thanks. I'll keep your references in mind.

Have you looked into the end user programming mouvement? One way to
tackle complexity at the GUI level there is to go back to one of the old
ideas of the HCI field, which is : the GUI is a language, and think
about ways to program the GUI. There is some work in what makes an easy
language.

Now, to go back to the original thread: do we want to dumb down the
interface or do we want to keep it complex? Nautilus, for me, is 'we
want to keep it complex' 'a la Blender' :):)

Thierry
--
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

Goubier Thierry

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

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 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent arguments !
>>>>>>> I am with you 100%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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

Igor Stasenko

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

it is obvious that i don't like it. :)

my eyes is sunk through the holes (the extra space between letters), which makes reading lot more harder.

In writing, the white space was invented and used for separating words, not the letters belonging to same word.

Now, it is me. Others may find it easier to read.

What i certainly agree with is that we need a good readable font for code.

On 15 October 2013 21:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent arguments !
I am with you 100%

On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> 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 regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Igor Stasenko

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Jimmie Houchin-5

On 15 October 2013 18:36, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/15/2013 11:06 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:

From: Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>

Progress is possible,

Indeed it is. And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not progress, it is regress.

perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95.

I didn't say it was. I said that systems designed with a coherent aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible than those which are not.

yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all together, sadly.

What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one.

But the change is away from proportional to monospace. I think the sale must be made as to what does that actually buy us. How does this improve our experience, pharo coherence?

It seems that many of us here don't believe that it provides that coherence of UI/UX that your hoping to move us towards.

So when changing from what we have, it seems that it needs to demonstrated that the change is for the better and not neutral or worse.

I personally don't buy the it is less foreign to non-Smalltalkers argument. non-Smalltalkers would just move their distaste of Smalltalk somewhere else. Why do we have to use the image? Why can't I use Emacs, vim, Eclipse? Its all very personal and sometimes very visceral.

I have seen some visceral comments from Igor regarding Python. I could make some from the C++ I've been looking at.

ah.. python. yes, i hate their choice of using white space as part of language syntax.
That is really retarded choice.
And actually the roots of my disdain of it is same why i prefer proportional fonts:

i like text, where white space is variable and not fixed, and used to make the text more readable,

and ergonomically fit within its boundaries (like in newspaper column).

If for people it would be easier to read text printed with monospaced font, then it would be like that

long before first computer display appear in the world.

Therefore, the whole idea that monospaced font is more readable is moot.

I could justify such choice if we would have certain technical limitations (of the past), which forcing us to use

less memory and text terminals.. but we're not..

We need to be the best open source Smalltalk-like experience. And not be constrained to other languages/editors/environments constraints and views on the world.

So those who choose to advocate for a change. Advocate. Make the sale.
Or else lets not make the change.

Jimmie

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

kilon

Re: default monospaced code font

I am anothet retarded that loves whitespaces :)
And as a proper retarded I love python too.

Igor Stasenko wrote

On 15 October 2013 18:36, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/15/2013 11:06 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>
> *From: *Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>> Progress is possible,
>
>
> Indeed it is. And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not
> progress, it is regress.
>
>
>> perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95.
>>
>
> I didn't say it was. I said that systems designed with a coherent
> aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible
> than those which are not.
>
>
> yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to
> achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all
> together, sadly.
> What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo
> coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one.
>
>
> But the change is away from proportional to monospace. I think the sale
> must be made as to what does that actually buy us. How does this improve
> our experience, pharo coherence?
>
> It seems that many of us here don't believe that it provides that
> coherence of UI/UX that your hoping to move us towards.
>
> So when changing from what we have, it seems that it needs to demonstrated
> that the change is for the better and not neutral or worse.
>
> I personally don't buy the it is less foreign to non-Smalltalkers
> argument. non-Smalltalkers would just move their distaste of Smalltalk
> somewhere else. Why do we have to use the image? Why can't I use Emacs,
> vim, Eclipse? Its all very personal and sometimes very visceral.
>
> I have seen some visceral comments from Igor regarding Python. I could
> make some from the C++ I've been looking at.
>
>
ah.. python. yes, i hate their choice of using white space as part of
language syntax.
That is really retarded choice.
And actually the roots of my disdain of it is same why i prefer
proportional fonts:
i like text, where white space is variable and not fixed, and used to make
the text more readable,
and ergonomically fit within its boundaries (like in newspaper column).
If for people it would be easier to read text printed with monospaced font,
then it would be like that
long before first computer display appear in the world.
Therefore, the whole idea that monospaced font is more readable is moot.

I could justify such choice if we would have certain technical limitations
(of the past), which forcing us to use
less memory and text terminals.. but we're not..

We need to be the best open source Smalltalk-like experience. And not be
> constrained to other languages/editors/environments constraints and views
> on the world.
>
> So those who choose to advocate for a change. Advocate. Make the sale.
> Or else lets not make the change.
>
> Jimmie
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Goubier Thierry

On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:29, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 16:35, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]
>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excellent arguments !
>>>>>>>> I am with you 100%
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:21, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>

abergel

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by kilon

Which 3d apps has a nice GUI? I would be happy to have a look at it

Alexandre

> Le 15-10-2013 à 11:36, kilon <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
>> processing.org uses monospaced font, these are the art guys that have more
>> sense graphics
>> than any one this mailinglist (BTW, how many of you have visited an art
>> school?)
>>
>> signature.asc (457 bytes)
>> <http://forum.world.st/attachment/4714509/0/signature.asc>
>
> Guilty as charged, doing music and graphics as long as I do coding. I am
> pushing becoming a pro digital painter in the next 3-5 years. I have been to
> an art school last year, but I prefer learning alone.
>
>
> Goubier Thierry wrote
>> Not me.
>>
>> I'm often not impressed by the tools used by graphics designers. I can't
>> get my head around the blender GUI, for example.
>>
>> Specialized communities, tools around their own concepts and very
>> productive for the training they have in it. Not a good entry level GUI,
>> in most cases.
>>
>> Innovative, interesting GUIs ? Game, arts projects (not tools, results
>> out of their tools).
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> you should be , 3d apps are by very far the most innovative software out
> there and their technology is evolving so fast artists barely can keep up.
>
> The challanges that GUIs have to face are just pure insane, the level of
> complexity just overwhelming because of thousands of features that
> constantly are dependent on each other. To be put it short, 3d apps are GUI
> coder worst nightmare.
>
> 3d app are for very hard to use for users , power users , coders , amateur
> artists , traditional pro artist. They don't care about any of them. They
> focus on a single group , 3d artists. This is why you will rarely find any
> serious 3d app sacrificing complexity of the gui for luring in other groups.
> They are nuclear weapons meant to be used by people that have high depends
> and want to do million different things with them.
>
> The only exception is Scetchup. But even that is not used by 3d artists as
> much as regular users.
>
> Blender belongs to the mediocre examples of GUI design for 3d app, best
> implementation by far being Softimage XSI. That program is a seminar how
> very complex GUIs should be done.
>
> Music apps also have the tendency of large complexity with very solid GUI
> Designs, an example is Ableton Live.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/default-monospaced-code-font-tp4714433p4714547.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Goubier Thierry

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Le 16/10/2013 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :

>
> On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> 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.

You're right. But nobody would dare write headings in a monospaced font
:) unless for an art project.

>> * 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 don't think so. This is no by making the selector green that it will
look more like the proportional version in the pane above.

Kind of disrupting the uniformity of the underlying model, when I'm
pushing for things like smart suggestions where the GUI understands the
objects written in the code.

> 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.

Probably. But then individual characters may become harder to read and
distinguish... sort of compromising character readability to make space
for the added whitespace inherent to the monospaced font.

I'd be more impressed if the argument was helping me distinguish between
| and l.

I'l let you try, then :)

Thierry
--
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

kilon

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3

"Which 3d apps has a nice GUI? I would be happy to have a look at it

Alexandre "

1) Softimage XSI

2) Cinema 4D

3) Modo

4) Zbrush

5) Truespace

6) Sketchup

and the list goes on and on and on

Blender also has very nice GUI, used to be awful at it, but a few years ago they committed the biggest Coding Sin, they rewrote the software and old GUI was thrown away. Its no Softimage but its a good example none the less. Definitely much better than Pharo.

Goubier Thierry

Re: default monospaced code font

Le 16/10/2013 15:05, dimitris chloupis a écrit :
>
> Blender also has very nice GUI, used to be awful at it, but a few years
> ago they committed the biggest Coding Sin, they rewrote the software and
> old GUI was thrown away. Its no Softimage but its a good example none
> the less. Definitely much better than Pharo.

Hum. I'm utterly lost in the Blender GUI. The fact I'm trying it on a
netbook with a 11"6 screen and no keypad has probably something to do
with it: you can't even use it without going into the options and
remapping the keyboard shortcuts... And all that wasted space!

So count me as not impressed by that GUI. Maybe as a good power user
GUI, for someone who has a 30" display, a full size keyboard, a mouse
and invested the time to learn it.

The GUI that accomodates beginners and power user on a highly complex
system is a rare beast indeed :(

However, like the dark theme discussion, it shows something of interest
for Pharo: egoistic applications which takes over a full screen with
their own selfish look and feel are perfectly fine :):)

Thierry
--
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

Igor Stasenko

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Goubier Thierry

On 16 October 2013 13:11, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 16/10/2013 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :

On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> 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.

You're right. But nobody would dare write headings in a monospaced font :) unless for an art project.

* 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 don't think so. This is no by making the selector green that it will look more like the proportional version in the pane above.

Kind of disrupting the uniformity of the underlying model, when I'm pushing for things like smart suggestions where the GUI understands the objects written in the code.

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.

Probably. But then individual characters may become harder to read and distinguish... sort of compromising character readability to make space for the added whitespace inherent to the monospaced font.

I'd be more impressed if the argument was helping me distinguish between | and l.

usually, most of sans-serif fonts barely distinguish between following 3:

l I |

(capital i, low-case el, pipe)

I'l let you try, then :)

Thierry

--
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

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Igor Stasenko

Re: default monospaced code font

On 16 October 2013 16:31, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 16 October 2013 13:11, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 16/10/2013 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :

On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> 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.

You're right. But nobody would dare write headings in a monospaced font :) unless for an art project.

* 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 don't think so. This is no by making the selector green that it will look more like the proportional version in the pane above.

Kind of disrupting the uniformity of the underlying model, when I'm pushing for things like smart suggestions where the GUI understands the objects written in the code.

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.

Probably. But then individual characters may become harder to read and distinguish... sort of compromising character readability to make space for the added whitespace inherent to the monospaced font.

I'd be more impressed if the argument was helping me distinguish between | and l.

usually, most of sans-serif fonts barely distinguish between following 3:
l I |
(capital i, low-case el, pipe)

test word:

Illiterate

:)

I'l let you try, then :)

Thierry

--
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

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

kilon

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Goubier Thierry

Dont understand the point you try to make. Using Blender settings is like the first thing you will do , to use Blender or any 3d app. I have used blender on 9'' netbook with super slow cpu. You can use it without numpad.

I repeat 3d apps dont care and should not care about beginners. What a beginner thinks about the GUI of a 3d app, just does not matter. If he does not feel lost then he does not use a 3d app. There is no way to produce a begineer friendly GUI for a 3d app as it would be for iPhone , or iPad apps. The future set is just insanely huge to do so. Also its a bad idea because you will need a complex GUI anyway to do even the most basic 3d art.

If you want to do very basic 3d art then you should use apps specializing on such thing and definitely not Blender. Blender has a very impressive GUI , but in the end is like operating Star Ship Enterprise without the help of its onboard AI computer. Thats the price of photorealism. If you are not willing to take on that kind of complexity then you are not cut out for 3d app. Maya and 3d Studio Max which have the monopoly in 3d apps are far more ugly and far less usable than Blender.

3d is so complex that most 3d artists specialize on specific areas. This is why I think they have the most demanding GUIs in software.

Wasted space ? Where ? Blender GUI is scalable , customisable., dockable , drag and dropable They have recently implemented also retina support and there are on going ports for android and iOS. Blender GUI is one of the first full blown OpenGL guis and is lighting fast.

Blender GUI also supports flow based coding, using nodes and recently custom nodes have been implemented allowing any python script to be visualised as nodes inside blender. I can go on for days on its feature set. Its just huge and very well thought out. Does it beat Softimage ? Nope Softimage is still the King. But definitely beats behemoths as 3ds MAX and Maya that have big issues with their guis.

No idea why you don't find it impressive, you should.

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:40, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hum. I'm utterly lost in the Blender GUI. The fact I'm trying it on a
netbook with a 11"6 screen and no keypad has probably something to do
with it: you can't even use it without going into the options and
remapping the keyboard shortcuts... And all that wasted space!

So count me as not impressed by that GUI. Maybe as a good power user
GUI, for someone who has a 30" display, a full size keyboard, a mouse
and invested the time to learn it.

The GUI that accomodates beginners and power user on a highly complex
system is a rare beast indeed :(

However, like the dark theme discussion, it shows something of interest
for Pharo: egoistic applications which takes over a full screen with
their own selfish look and feel are perfectly fine :):)

Thierry
--
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

Eliot Miranda-2

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko

Hi Igor,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15 October 2013 18:36, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/15/2013 11:06 AM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:

From: Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]>

Progress is possible,

Indeed it is. And moving from proportional to mono-spaced fonts is not progress, it is regress.

perfection was not achieved in 81 or in 95.

I didn't say it was. I said that systems designed with a coherent aesthetics and philosophy are more coherent, powerful and comprehensible than those which are not.

yes, they are, I agree with that, and that's what we are trying to achieve... advancing one small step at a time, because we cannot doit all together, sadly.

What I do not see is how proportional fonts fits more with a pharo coherence (which in my pov does not exists today) than a monospaced one.

But the change is away from proportional to monospace. I think the sale must be made as to what does that actually buy us. How does this improve our experience, pharo coherence?

It seems that many of us here don't believe that it provides that coherence of UI/UX that your hoping to move us towards.

So when changing from what we have, it seems that it needs to demonstrated that the change is for the better and not neutral or worse.

I personally don't buy the it is less foreign to non-Smalltalkers argument. non-Smalltalkers would just move their distaste of Smalltalk somewhere else. Why do we have to use the image? Why can't I use Emacs, vim, Eclipse? Its all very personal and sometimes very visceral.

I have seen some visceral comments from Igor regarding Python. I could make some from the C++ I've been looking at.

ah.. python. yes, i hate their choice of using white space as part of language syntax.
That is really retarded choice.

Slurring the off-side rule with "retarded" is simply childish. I should declare that I knew and admired the inventor of the off-side rule, Peter Landin, for quite a few years at Queen Mary. And a more intelligent man you couldn't hope to meet. The off-side rule is a considered design, it is used by lots of languages, especially those in the functional tradition (e.g. Haskell and Curry), it is simple and elegant, and for people brought up in that tradition I'm sure it seems extremely natural. Like Smalltalk, these languages are concise, having a minimal ammount of supporting syntax for declarations. The off-side rule means no open and close braces, and what a field of disagreement over code aesthetics that eliminates.

"retarded"? Come on, how about some thought and criticism?

And actually the roots of my disdain of it is same why i prefer proportional fonts:

i like text, where white space is variable and not fixed, and used to make the text more readable,
and ergonomically fit within its boundaries (like in newspaper column).

But that doesn't militate against the off-side rule (which doesn't have to be based on space count, or assuming tab with is 8, or..., simply needs to be based on the clear appearance of indentation, and there are presumably implementation choices there).

If for people it would be easier to read text printed with monospaced font, then it would be like that

long before first computer display appear in the world.
Therefore, the whole idea that monospaced font is more readable is moot.

Agreed.

I could justify such choice if we would have certain technical limitations (of the past), which forcing us to use

less memory and text terminals.. but we're not..

Agreed.

And please forgive my outburst the other day.

We need to be the best open source Smalltalk-like experience. And not be constrained to other languages/editors/environments constraints and views on the world.

So those who choose to advocate for a change. Advocate. Make the sale.
Or else lets not make the change.

Jimmie

--
best,

Eliot

philippeback

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Goubier Thierry

Bryce 7 has an approachable UI.

http://www.youtube.com/user/davidbrinnen/videos

And there is a lot of depth in the materials etc.

Wings3D is also approachable.

http://www.wings3d.com/

---

Philippe Back

Dramatic Performance Improvements

Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027

[hidden email] | Web: http://philippeback.eu

Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos

High Octane SPRL

rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium

Pharo Consortium Member - http://consortium.pharo.org/

Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast - http://spamcast.libsyn.com

Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 16/10/2013 15:05, dimitris chloupis a écrit :

Blender also has very nice GUI, used to be awful at it, but a few years
ago they committed the biggest Coding Sin, they rewrote the software and
old GUI was thrown away. Its no Softimage but its a good example none
the less. Definitely much better than Pharo.

Hum. I'm utterly lost in the Blender GUI. The fact I'm trying it on a netbook with a 11"6 screen and no keypad has probably something to do with it: you can't even use it without going into the options and remapping the keyboard shortcuts... And all that wasted space!

So count me as not impressed by that GUI. Maybe as a good power user GUI, for someone who has a 30" display, a full size keyboard, a mouse and invested the time to learn it.

The GUI that accomodates beginners and power user on a highly complex system is a rare beast indeed :(

However, like the dark theme discussion, it shows something of interest for Pharo: egoistic applications which takes over a full screen with their own selfish look and feel are perfectly fine :):)

Thierry
--
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

Ben Coman

Re: default monospaced code font

In reply to this post by Goubier Thierry

Goubier Thierry wrote:

>
>
> Le 16/10/2013 11:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Goubier Thierry <[hidden email]>
>> 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.
>
> You're right. But nobody would dare write headings in a monospaced
> font :) unless for an art project.
>
>>> * 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 don't think so. This is no by making the selector green that it will
> look more like the proportional version in the pane above.
>
> Kind of disrupting the uniformity of the underlying model, when I'm
> pushing for things like smart suggestions where the GUI understands
> the objects written in the code.
>
>> 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.
>
> Probably. But then individual characters may become harder to read and
> distinguish... sort of compromising character readability to make
> space for the added whitespace inherent to the monospaced font.
>
> I'd be more impressed if the argument was helping me distinguish
> between | and l.

Yes. It is designed to do that. Some common failings of monospaced fonts
are noted [1] and dealt with. There comment section is also interesting.

The attached PDFs are the result of getting the urge to compare a broad
coverage of code examples (taken from "Terse Guide to Squeak") against
three fonts:
* DejaVu Sans 9 point
* Source Code Pro [1] [2] 9 point
* Source Sans Pro [3] [4] 9 point & 10 point, since the width of 10 was
the same as the others at 9.
Also attached is the source excel file.

cheers -ben

[1] http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2012/09/source-code-pro.html
[2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/sourcecodepro.adobe/files/
[3] http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2012/08/source-sans-pro.html
[4] http://sourceforge.net/projects/sourcesans.adobe/postdownload?source=dlp
>
> I'l let you try, then :)
>
> Thierry

Fonts-comparison-DejaVuSans9-SourceCode9-SourceSans9.pdf (77K) Download Attachment

Fonts-comparison-DejaVuSans9-SourceCode9-SourceSans10.pdf (80K) Download Attachment

Fonts-comparison.xlsx (68K) Download Attachment

123456