3 ms·

Well, setting whole books in fixed-width has never been the norm. Personally I find fixed-width very hard to read for regular text. For example, compare these

by cpach 7y ago

Well, setting whole books in fixed-width has never been the norm. Personally I find fixed-width very hard to read for regular text. For example, compare these two documents: http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/aim-349.pdf http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/aim-349.pdf http://www.larcenists.org/Documentation/Documentation0.98/r7rs.pdf http://www.larcenists.org/Documentation/Documentation0.98/r7... I know which one I prefer when it comes to typography and readability.

tomsmeding 7y ago
Though in that example, to be fair, a major point in readability is the quality of the scan. Of course the LaTeX document is nicer, because it's digitally rendered instead of low-resolution scanned from a paper original. ;) That doesn't make me agree with you any less, though. Some words are just unnaturally wide in monospace.
heavenlyblue 7y ago
However when you’re programming, you’re looking for structural rather than semantic meaning of words. The only true meaning of natural text is the meaning given to the words; but the only true meaning of code is the way punctuation is organised around superficial natural texts within the elements.
laumars 7y ago
> Well, setting whole books in fixed-width has never been the norm. In books, I agree. Even Gutenberg's press had variable width "types". However not everyone reads books regularly and fixed width was all that was available in offices (well, that or handwritten documents). So for a great many people like myself, fixed width typefaces were still the norm.
enriquto 7y ago
In your example, I find the typewritten text to be very beautifully laid out. The latex rendering is cluttered and uses a font which is too thin.
- cpach 7y ago
  I agree that the layout of the R7RS document could be further improved.
- zeveb 7y ago
  Computer Modern was designed to be printed with ink presses, and so it assumes a certain amount of running in the liquid. If it will be rendered solely on-screen, it needs to be thickened slightly. Fortunately this is easy with Metafont; unfortunately the default TeX installations don't do it.

by cpach 7y ago

tomsmeding 7y ago

Though in that example, to be fair, a major point in readability is the quality of the scan. Of course the LaTeX document is nicer, because it's digitally rendered instead of low-resolution scanned from a paper original. ;) That doesn't make me agree with you any less, though. Some words are just unnaturally wide in monospace.

heavenlyblue 7y ago

However when you’re programming, you’re looking for structural rather than semantic meaning of words. The only true meaning of natural text is the meaning given to the words; but the only true meaning of code is the way punctuation is organised around superficial natural texts within the elements.

laumars 7y ago

> Well, setting whole books in fixed-width has never been the norm. In books, I agree. Even Gutenberg's press had variable width "types". However not everyone reads books regularly and fixed width was all that was available in offices (well, that or handwritten documents). So for a great many people like myself, fixed width typefaces were still the norm.

enriquto 7y ago

In your example, I find the typewritten text to be very beautifully laid out. The latex rendering is cluttered and uses a font which is too thin.

cpach 7y ago
I agree that the layout of the R7RS document could be further improved.
zeveb 7y ago
Computer Modern was designed to be printed with ink presses, and so it assumes a certain amount of running in the liquid. If it will be rendered solely on-screen, it needs to be thickened slightly. Fortunately this is easy with Metafont; unfortunately the default TeX installations don't do it.