Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go fonts

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: Go fonts

#81

Post by creshal »

SanFranManDan wrote: post #34

This reminds me of Java applications that you can immediately tell are Java because of the weird font. I don't see an advantage over using native system fonts. As far as I know you don't need a license to use fonts installed on the system running the application. Why does the font need to be bundled? The wide spread adoption of this is going to make go programs stick out like a sore thumb.

> I don't see an advantage over using native system fonts

As touched on in the article, you need a standardized font you have control over for automated testing, to make sure you're getting reproducible results. OS fonts are too inconsistent for that.

Now, why they couldn't use any of the literally hundreds of other open-source fonts instead that Google made…

Re: Go fonts

#82

Post by creshal »

sjellis wrote: post #71

I'm surprised that people haven't commented on the implicit story here: the intention to deliver the "Shiny" cross-platform graphical toolkit for Go. If that happens, Go becomes one of the very few programming languages with a default cross-platform UI library.

Let's hope it won't be as ugly as the Java crap. Or Tk.

Re: Go fonts

#83

Post by rcarmo »

These look exactly like the Plan9 fonts (which IIRC were also by Bigelow&Holmes). Ironically, the Plan9 folk seem to shun TrueType in favor of bitmap fonts... I'm pretty sure the Raspberry Pi Plan9 image I'm running at my home office only has bitmap fonts installed.

Re: Go fonts

#84

Post by [deleted] »

AlphaSite wrote: post #50
marcelluspye wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While possibility is another question entirely, from a design standpoint I can definitely see why an app might want to bundle the font together with the rest of the package. It guarantees a homogeneous user experience.

Being self consistent is not important, being constant with the environment is important.

[deleted]

Re: Go fonts

#85

Post by vertebrate »

sjm wrote: post #22
crsmithdev wrote: post #4

Yuck, the monospace font feels too dense, and dislike the serifs.

It's a pity when newer typefaces don't have lighter weights — they look far better on high resolution displays than normal/regular weights, which look almost bold. My favourite example and what I use daily, Office Code Pro Light: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sjrmanning/darkokai/screen...

This is MacOS font rendering for you, in Linux normal weight looks normal

Re: Go fonts

#86

Post by dsymonds »

dx034 wrote: post #80
donatj wrote: post #2

Interestingly strange they wouldn't just choose an existing open source font that got along with their license. I guess even you've got Google's wallet behind you it opens a lot of doors.

It confuses me even more considering that Google is behind it. Google just announced fonts for all unicode characters. [1] Why create an extra font that will cause every app to look like a "Go" app instead of a native Windows/Linux/Mac app? [1] https://www.google.com/get/noto/

Google isn't behind it. Some Google employees who work on Go are behind it (well, and Chuck Bigelow too).

But as keeps getting said: it's about the licensing.

Re: Go fonts

#87

Post by __david__ »

randomdata wrote: post #57
ekvintroj wrote: post #3

This fonts are pretty cool. But I don't understand why they just used Roboto or Noto fonts.

Roboto appears to be licensed under Apache 2.0. Noto under SIL Open Font license. As these fonts are purportedly intended for testing purposes, presumably they will be included in the package. Adding additional licenses to the codebase complicates the usage. You might agree to the terms of the Go license, but not the Apache license, for instance. Since this new font is licensed under the Go license, there is only one…

> Adding additional licenses to the codebase complicates the usage.

Not really if the additional licensed parts are tests. Most things don't ship their dependencies' tests in the final binary.

Re: Go fonts

#88

Post by dx034 »

dsymonds wrote: post #86
dx034 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It confuses me even more considering that Google is behind it. Google just announced fonts for all unicode characters. [1] Why create an extra font that will cause every app to look like a "Go" app instead of a native Windows/Linux/Mac app? [1] https://www.google.com/get/noto/

Google isn't behind it. Some Google employees who work on Go are behind it (well, and Chuck Bigelow too). But as keeps getting said: it's about the licensing.

As I understand it, some of the main developers are being paid by Google to develop the language. The main page is also hosted by Google. Even though the language is technically open, that makes it a Google language for me. Not in a negative sense, it means that they should profit from it.

I still don't understand why they would have to license the Google fonts for testing and using them as standard fonts. EDIT: I just saw that Noto is available with an open license, just not the Go license. But I still think Google would relicense it to Go, seems like something Google would do in this case.

Re: Go fonts

#89

Post by petters »

The monospace font looks interesting. Fixed-width serif fonts are not that common.

But creating fonts for Go? That sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Post reply on HN