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

Dev Fonts

devfonts.gafi.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 342 posts

Re: Dev Fonts

#191

Post by slmjkdbtl »

lucideer wrote: post #22
uallo wrote: post #5

More and more often, I see ligatures being used on such fonts. E.g. === or != are combined in a visually single character. Personally, I don't like that at all as I think it makes code less readable. It is probably something that you can get used to. But what exactly is the appeal of it anyway?

> But what exactly is the appeal of it anyway? To answer this question you probably need to start broader with: why do ligatures exist in fonts at all? Then see if that applies to programming. There's various accounts of the "reasons" ligatures came to be, but of the few I've seen all would (imo) apply equally to code as to language. The obvious one is pure aesthetic preference, but another is that ligatures came abo…

I can understand why it might aesthetically please some people, but can't understand how it actually helps with semantics, if one can't stand seeing "!=", it must drive them crazy to see other abstract symbols like "||", "return", "float".. imagine these are all replaced by single non-ascii obscure characters, it might be an interesting research on symbols, but i don't think it'll be a pleasant editing and reading experience for everyone

Re: Dev Fonts

#192

Post by boomlinde »

hda111 wrote: post #151
1f60c wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a free monospace serif-looking font called Go (made for Go, the programming language), designed by Bigelow & Holmes: https://blog.golang.org/go-fonts

Unfortunately it isn't using a usual font license. It's not really clear under what conditions you can use/redistribute it.

It may not be usual, but what about the licensing terms is unclear?

Re: Dev Fonts

#193

Post by bstar77 »

ldjb wrote: post #15
uallo wrote: post #5

More and more often, I see ligatures being used on such fonts. E.g. === or != are combined in a visually single character. Personally, I don't like that at all as I think it makes code less readable. It is probably something that you can get used to. But what exactly is the appeal of it anyway?

I suppose some might say the code looks cleaner with ligatures and they better convey the meaning of the code (e.g. ≠ is easier to understand than !=). Personally, however, I like to see exactly what it is I am typing, exactly which symbols are being used. Ligatures distort that. Ligatures are fine when reading prose, but I find them too confusing when coding. That's a personal preference, though. I'm sure some peopl…

To each his own I guess... I find ligatures show intent, are easier to identify and help instantly identify typos (== vs ===). I also find the things that ligatures replace are usually ugly "programming specific" sequences of characters. For instance, arrow functions look much better with their respective ligature because the equals and greater than characters are guaranteed to be aligned perfectly.

I'm primarily working in Javascript, so it may make more sense to use ligatures in my dev environment. And, as others have said, ligatures need to be explicitly enabled in your editor.

Re: Dev Fonts

#194

Post by DrBazza »

LandR wrote: post #169
DrBazza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, my eyes and brain just can't scan ligatures in code efficiently, I have to double read the code, especially "is that =, ==, or ===? Oh, and that's !==" (edit) I'll additionally qualify my comment, from a mathematics background I can casually scan a handwritten "!=" which is the same as the ligature, but I just cannot retrain my adult brain to accept the ligature version which is the same as the handwritte…

I find some ligatures help a lot. I can often miss != but won't miss ≠ or ≢ I think the whole idea of pre-pending ! to negate is a poor idea in general, it's too hard to spot especially in long convoluted lines where it's just thrown in before a complex bracketed expression.

Even looking at what you've typed was hard for my old (!!) brain to read, especially != and !==.

It's brain training - you find "!" hard to spot, and I don't. And vice versa for ligatures. Thank goodness we both have choices!

Re: Dev Fonts

#195

Post by folkrav »

kleiba wrote: post #170

I've been programming for over three decades, on many different systems with many different fonts. This topic pops up every so often but I cannot help but think that to me, it's the ultimate bikeshedding...

It couldn't be more subjective than that. This, and color schemes. Having any kind of argument over the subject is an utter waste of time indeed, as it ultimately boils down to preference.

Re: Dev Fonts

#196

Post by wojo1206 »

I think I'm font blind :) I hav't notice any difference on these code samples until I read its git readme and come back again.

Re: Dev Fonts

#197

Post by kps »

zingplex wrote: post #187
kps wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way. Ligatures in coding fonts are a poor workaround for bad keyboard layouts. If you want to see ≠ then type ≠. Julia is the only ‘major’ language I know that supports most such characters.

Haskell has a language extension that does the same thing [1]. Now all you need is a keyboard with good unicode coverage [2]. [1] https://wiki.haskell.org/Unicode-symbols [2] https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EKfCI8QuAaM/S7L-baZ-ZVI/AAAAAAAAD...

It's unfortunate that keyboard input is an afterthought for most systems.

OS X is probably the best overall, with easy installation (with one gotcha for development) and SIL Ukelele being a decent editor.

XKB is tolerable, overcomplicated in some ways and limited in others (really needing a layout to be paired with an .XCompose), but Linux Desktops™ make it painful to configure any layout that doesn't ship with their system.

Re: Dev Fonts

#198

Post by aendruk »

ossopite wrote: post #102

I switched to coding in a proportional font, Verdana, a couple of years ago and never looked back. That's the font you are reading this comment in, in fact. Code is mostly words and words are much easier to read in a proportional font. Symbols are plenty clear enough in Verdana, all letters are distinguishable, and I don't use mid-line alignment so I don't see the point in a monospace font outside of the terminal.

The trick to enjoying this is opting in/out on a per language or project basis.

Iosevka has a proportional variant with all the fancy ligatures that’s just delightful.

Re: Dev Fonts

#199

Post by unicornporn »

chrismorgan wrote: post #16

My favourite monospaced font is Triplicate https://practicaltypography.com/triplicate.html >: the only true serif monospace that I know of (though I have a vague feeling I found one other at some point). Every other serif monospace I know of is a slab serif. Triplicate’s variable stroke thickness is also exceedingly rare in monospaced fonts; almost everyone goes for uniform stroke thickness, as is customary with sans…

> My favourite monospaced font is Triplicate: the only true serif monospace that I know of

Also: https://github.com/yellow-type-foundry/xanhmono / https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Xanh+Mono

Re: Dev Fonts

#200

Post by lxe »

Iosevka is highly active and highly customizable set that I've been sticking with after a dozen terminal fonts switching. Every time I try a new font now, I go back to Iosevka. The narrow width makes it stand out significantly from the others and it's much easier to use when having multiple columns open on the screen. I highly recommend it.
Post reply on HN