[squeak-dev] Re: How to compile FreeType Plugin (FT2Plugin)?

Juan Vuletich juan at jvuletich.org
Fri Mar 21 20:58:40 UTC 2008

Andreas Raab wrote:
> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> Uhm, no, not really. It's a new feature not a fix. As such, it 
>>> should be treated with some caution. I'm not saying that it can't be 
>>> included but there are some aspects about it that make me feel very 
>>> uneasy (for example the whole kadoodle in Grafport - I'm virtually 
>>> certain that there will be situations where this is wrong).
>> It is just a fix. Why should StrikeFonts break with more than 1 bpp? 
> Because they weren't designed to work with anything but 1bpp. 
> Otherwise you might as well ask "Why should the Squeak VM break with 
> Java bytecodes? It's just bytecodes after all." A nonsensical argument.

A closer (actually related) argument would say: "Why should BitBlt work 
with anything but 1bpp? It was designed for that". Fortunately Dan 
didn't see it that way, and we have Squeak and not just Smalltalk-80.
>>> As a matter of fact I'd probably vote for leaving StrikeFont 
>>> completely alone and introduce a new font subclass for these guys. 
>>> It makes clear where the assumptions are and the extension points 
>>> for fonts are by now defined well-enough that these fonts could be 
>>> one loadable option.
>> I don't agree. The "assumption" that StrikeFonts are 1 bpp is not 
>> documented. And it doesn't make sense anyway.
> Oh, well if you want to make everything in Squeak that's "not 
> documented" mean undefined you might as well start over ;-)

Well, you said "It makes clear where the assumptions are". It doesn't 
make it clear at all, unless it is said somewhere.
>>>> - There are four (that I know) advanced approach to fonts for 
>>>> Squeak: TTCFont, FreeType, Cairo / Rome and Pango. It makes sense 
>>>> to me to include StrikeFonts (including my 32bit fix) in a basic 
>>>> official image, with a really small set of fonts. Then the 
>>>> developer can choose an advanced font package if needed, taking 
>>>> into account that TTCFont needs way more memory than 32 bit 
>>>> StrikeFonts (due to color glyph cache) and that the other options 
>>>> need specific plugins.
>>> It makes more sense to me if your fonts are one of the loadable 
>>> options from Squeakmap. Then people can decide whether they want 
>>> one, the other, or both.
>> I don't see in what they differ from StrikeFonts.
> I do.
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
I can tell!

Juan Vuletich

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list