<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Bert Freudenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
On 22.08.2009, at 10:42, Ian Trudel wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The current font does not seem proportional. Can't we have a default<br>
monospaced font? I'm curious to know what other thinks about this. The<br>
current font seems fine as far as look is concerned but it's quite<br>
traditional to use monospaced fonts when programming.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Elsewhere yes, but not in the Smalltalk tradition. Others are still emulating character block generators, but Smalltalk relied on a bitmapped display pretty much forever. I find Smalltalk code displayed in a character-based terminal emulator style quite ugly.<br>
<font color="#888888">
</font></blockquote><div><br><br>I agree with Bert.<br><br>Fixed-width fonts are an artifact dating back to typewriters, printers and naive computer displays that weren't sophisticated enough to do proper typesetting. The main reason that you prefer them is because you've been using them for so long.<br>
<br>I find nicely typeset Smalltalk code using variable width fonts a pleasure to read. These days I use variable width fonts for all programming languages I use.<br></div></div><br>Gulik.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a><br>