It bothers way me more that the same glyph can differ within the same word than it satisfies me that the glyphs are very slightly more proportional. The third "m" in the "minimum" example being narrower than the "m"s adjacent to the two "i"s makes my brain itch. Same for the "i"s in "miniature". Makes me feel like I'm looking through a fish-eye lens, or that my glasses prescription is off.
I think this all makes a lot more sense when seen in a practical context rather than the blown-up examples in the feature documentation.
Take a look at the code editor examples on the main site for Github Monaspace: https://monaspace.githubnext.com Scroll down to the "Five Fonts" section and try unchecking the texture healing toggle.
The fisheye effect you get when looking at the font in 200pt goes away at 16pt, and in the context of a busy code block, has the effect of smoothing out the visual rhythm of the characters with only a minor disruption of the monospace grid. Perhaps it's not for everyone (it is a trade-off), but I think it's a smart compromise.
I can’t help but think that the example in that page has used ‘timing’ so much to deliberately show off texture healing - it’s a great example because the ‘m’ can expand in both directions and the ‘i’s end up looking the same.
I suspect the state where different width variants of the same letter are close to each other would happen a lot more in the real world.
Right, and they show it above "time" where the "e" can't "give the space" so you can understand if it actually bothers you (probably not unless you stop and stare):
const timing_end_m_ = () => {
let timing_end = new Date();
let time_spent = timing_end - timing_start; // in ms
After seeing it in a larger context like that, I'm even more in agreement with OP. The weirdly random letter alignment screws with my brain much more than I thought from just the localized examples in the topic link.
I'll stick to the consistent design for a slightly less aesthetic experience for that reason alone.
This might be an autism thing for me but turning on texture healing on that page is so horrible it actually made me flinch.
The fact that the "i" in "terminal dimensions" and the "i" in "width" aren't underneath each other makes it look like my monitor is broken or something. It's like someone has done it on purpose to mess with me.
I think this is a fun innovation and I might try to use it in my terminal, but for coding, the real solution should be obvious: use a proportional font.
This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but proportional fonts are great.
One question people sometimes ask is, "How can you code in a proportional font? How do you line things up in columns?"
The answer is you don't. For example, the Black code formatter for Python completely eschews column alignment of this sort:
foo.bar(one,
two,
three)
(Imagine that the words were long enough that the whole thing wouldn't fit on one line.)
Instead, Black formats it like this:
foo.bar(
one,
two,
three
)
No column alignment, only indentation. Code formatted like this is equally readable in a proportional or monospaced font. You don't need monospaced fonts!
I've read and written all my code in proportional fonts for close to 20 years. My current one is Trebuchet++, a variant of Trebuchet MS that I customized in FontForge.
Trebuchet MS is pretty good on its own. For example, all of the "confusable" glyphs are easy to distinguish. And it renders very nicely on a high-DPI display.
Its tilde is pretty bad, though. It's tiny and almost looks like a hyphen. So that was the first thing I fixed, putting in a better tilde.
Then I experimented with spacing for the _ and . glyphs. I added negative margin on both sides of the _, while keeping its width. And I added positive spacing on both sides of the . glyph. Consider code like this:
snake_case_name.another_snaky_name()
These spacing changes have the affect of pulling the individual words in each name closer together, while increasing the separation between the two names.
It is subtle, but to my eye it helps readability.
Next up will be to add some positive margin inside the three pairs of brackety things: (), [], {}. I have always found that it helps readability to add a space inside parens and such, but most contemporary code formatters prohibit this. With a proportional font I can tweak the font to put some visual spacing there.
I don't like the extra lines, but also I almost never care if "one" is exactly lined up with "two". You can use proportional fonts with the first example too.
You dismissed the idea as "if you stop doing thing which benefit from monospaced fonts", suggesting that monospaced fonts are better in this situation.
My argument is that both fonts are just as good in this situation, and monospaced fonts aren't benefiting here. You don't need monospaced fonts to use formatting 1, you can just choose formatting 1 and then use either kind of font.
Having the "one" line up with the "two" is the benefit here, and the point of the monospaced font. If you don't care about that, fine. But objectively lots of people do.
Well I'm saying that it does still line up in a reasonable sense, at least from the perspective of someone that would use a proportional font at all and isn't looking for a grid.
It's important to note that I'm not comparing monospace versus proportional. I'm saying that "formatting 1 with proportional font" isn't really worse than "formatting 2 with proportional font". Both of them are going to have problems from someone that really likes monospacing.
For me it's not about lining things up in columns as much as it is about column widths. So, for example, hitting up or down, I know which character the cursor is going to go to (which means I can string keypresses together and do them in a fluid movement). Putting in a hard limit for line lengths (which is very important to me, I know opinions on this differ) means that limit can be drawn as a literal line on the UI (which in turn means I know how small I can resize the editor pane to be). Similar lines with slightly different values (e.g. 'x', 'y' and 'z') will line up so the different values are underneath each other everywhere they appear in the line (also those lines will be the same length which reassures me those lines are the same outside the variables/values).
Yup, I unfortunately have to agree. It's a cool idea, but when I type "gimme" in the editor, the two adjacent m's are different widths, and it looks sooo wrong.
Interestingly enough, the fact that letterforms change as I type doesn't bother me the way I thought it would -- turns out I'm already kinda used to it from ligatures.
So points for being a clever idea to try out, but unfortunately what it does to a word like "gimme" just makes it a non-starter. Let's face it -- lowercase m's in monospace will always be ugly and cramped, but at least they're consistently so.
But is this a fundamentally bad idea, or is it, like kerning in general (which can require thousands of pairs to be defined), something that just needs more work?
It's not like this is limited to just a few pairs of letters like 'mi', or just pairs - if you've seen Fontemon https://www.coderelay.io/fontemon.html you know the sky is the limit for what the rewrites can do!
It's a fundamentally bad idea. I think for anything to look monospace for me the following two properties are non-negotiable.
1) Horizontal spacing needs to align vertically between glyphs of the same letters on separate lines. This is the example I give elsewhere of a letter "i" being in a very slightly different position than the same letter just two lines above it. I personally find this extremely disturbing and unpleasant to look at in monospace.
2) The glyph of a letter needs to be the exact same between instances of the same letter that are in any kind of visual proximity. This is the "gimme" example the parent of your comment gives. AnyThinG ElSe LoOkS lIkE jumblycase. Which I think we can all agree is just plain horrible.
> It's not obvious to me how any further work could fix it.
In "gimme" you could have a rule that when any character is next to itself both occurrences must have the same width. Wouldn't that fix the "gimme" example?
What about distributing the space amount more that one letter, and ensuring no two of the same letter are ever different. You'd allow things to get out of sync and not be on a perfect grid, so long as you could align everything at key points where a line has the same character on two successive lines, or some other case where you know you need alignment.
Everything else would just look like a proportional font.
Maybe it would influence coders too much and subconsciously make them choose names that line up well though...
My brain seems to scan for differences to familiar patterns. For code that just doesn't look right. When I see stuff like this, it feels like finding a bug/typo. So a lot of false alarms.
Maybe my brain would adjust after a while. And maybe I'm also different to other people. I think my reading skills are a bit skewed towards recognizing words/patterns instead of reading characters (probably some form of compensation for my dyslexia).
