4 ms·

There is also a version in ConTeXt (arguably a bit higher quality and with some very impressive programmatic typography): https://github.com/jemmybutton/byrne-e

There is also a version in ConTeXt (arguably a bit higher quality and with some very impressive programmatic typography): https://github.com/jemmybutton/byrne-euclid https://github.com/jemmybutton/byrne-euclid

theoh 8y ago
The typography is definitely competitive. It's unfortunate that TeX and Metafont are so dated and so austere in terms of what they offer the programmer. It's a big barrier to figuring out what is going on. The author of the c82.net version is obviously a meticulous graphic designer, but his priorities are clearly so far away from the mindset needed to enjoy writing complex TeX that the comparison is a bit difficult to make. Where the ConTeXt one falls down, aesthetically speaking, is the lettrines (which, by the way, are more usually called initials in English). They show the marks of having been procedurally generated rather than hand-drawn, for example in the way that the line width doesn't vary, and the way the curves appear to be piecewise circular arcs. It's not possible to make beautiful organic arabesques with a few piecewise circular arcs, it just ends up looking crude and mechanical. Mathematicians are inclined to be insensitive to this problem. Take the following invented curve, for example. The junctions between different arcs aren't smooth enough. No typographer would accept it, although it goes without saying that typeface design is not a highly complex intellectual activity comparable with math—it's about judging things by eye. https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/jan/13/golden-ratio-beautiful-new-curve-harriss-spiral https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numb... It's a shame that fragmentation of expertise means that the mathematicians and the typeface designers don't generally communicate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

theoh 8y ago

The typography is definitely competitive. It's unfortunate that TeX and Metafont are so dated and so austere in terms of what they offer the programmer. It's a big barrier to figuring out what is going on. The author of the c82.net version is obviously a meticulous graphic designer, but his priorities are clearly so far away from the mindset needed to enjoy writing complex TeX that the comparison is a bit difficult to make. Where the ConTeXt one falls down, aesthetically speaking, is the lettrines (which, by the way, are more usually called initials in English). They show the marks of having been procedurally generated rather than hand-drawn, for example in the way that the line width doesn't vary, and the way the curves appear to be piecewise circular arcs. It's not possible to make beautiful organic arabesques with a few piecewise circular arcs, it just ends up looking crude and mechanical. Mathematicians are inclined to be insensitive to this problem. Take the following invented curve, for example. The junctions between different arcs aren't smooth enough. No typographer would accept it, although it goes without saying that typeface design is not a highly complex intellectual activity comparable with math—it's about judging things by eye. https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/jan/13/golden-ratio-beautiful-new-curve-harriss-spiral https://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numb... It's a shame that fragmentation of expertise means that the mathematicians and the typeface designers don't generally communicate.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]