3 ms·
Programmer's Font [2004]
- durbin 16y agoShow the font in a very small size.
- chaosmachine 16y agoI'm tempted to start using this just for the novelty factor. Anyone glancing over your shoulder will probably assume you're an alien. http://imgur.com/xktPl.png http://imgur.com/xktPl.png
- thunk 16y agoOriginal emacs manual cover: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/its-cover.png http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/its-cover.png
- phren0logy 16y agoSo that's who wrote that finger-crippling macro. It all makes sense now.
- ndunn2 16y agoThis is so awful to look at I can't even comprehend. Maybe in 2004 screen real estate was at a premium, but a lot of developers I know now have at least two high resolution monitors, if not a single ultra high (2560x1200) resolution monitor. I'd gladly take the standard monospaced fonts any day.
- sambeau 16y agoIt really wasn't. I was running three flat-screen monitors in 2004. This is a bad solution to a problem that didn't exist.
- oepn 16y agoOne fairly large readability issue is the lack of a "coastline" along the tops of the letters. It's like typing in all caps.
- sambeau 16y ago"We need to re-engineer the alphabet so that it will be clear at extremely small sizes." No. We don't.
- BoppreH 16y agoOpen http://i.imgur.com/xktPl.png http://i.imgur.com/xktPl.png in your browser and zoom out. Frankly, I don't see advantage over the common alphabet, even when considering this problem that nobody actually has.
- archangel_one 16y agoLeaving aside the fact that there's no chance of everyone adopting a new alphabet to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, I don't like the filled-in parts of letters (G, W and M). They look too unusual in a string of text and would be too hard to write on paper.