4 ms·

That's the source code; there's also the 360-page user manual, The Metafont Book, published by Addison-Wesley, in both soft and hard-cover. Unhappily out of pri

That's the source code; there's also the 360-page user manual, The Metafont Book, published by Addison-Wesley, in both soft and hard-cover. Unhappily out of print; softcover ISBN 0201134446 9780201134445; hardcover 0201134454 9780201134452 at places like AbeBooks.com. At the time, the idea that a type designer would use a computer as part of the design process (or even at all) was pretty radical. And the notion that you were expected to design a parameterized version of your font, that would produce both regular and bold, in any point size, from a single source where you specified control point coordinates with multiple linear equations in multiple unknowns, was also a challenge. (And, no, it isn't acceptable to do that algorithmically.) Ultimately, the biggest impediment seemed to be Metafont's "stroke with a brush" model was at odds with how designers lived in an "outline" world. The combination of this calligraphic orientation on top of needing to be comfortable with linear algebra and computer programming, account for Metafont's lack of popularity, I believe.

Tomte 6y ago
I agree that the "brush with a stroke" is the first thing you see when you look at Metafont and the first examples in the Metafontbook, but in real projects (like Computer Modern) you're using the brush to draw an outline, so there isn't much difference anymore (except for the fact that you're moving a shape across the outline instead of a zero-dimensional point, and that is unconventional, but really helps).
- drfuchs 6y ago
  Fair enough, but they sure groused about it at the time.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    Wait, I just noticed your id. drfuchs as in David Fuchs? The inventor of the GF file format? I don't remember if we ever met in person back in the day but hi!
    - drfuchs 6y ago
      Yes, that would be me. Usually folks bring up DVI, but thanks for the GF shout-out! For the record, as a real user of Metafont, all of your comments on this page are more informed than mine. (And, hi, Don!)
      - dhosek 6y ago
        I remember when I wrote DVIview for VM/CMS being jealous of the fact that your initials were valid hex and mine weren't. (And for those not in the know, David also created the DVI format.)
dhosek 6y ago
The biggest reason for MF's not catching on was the lack of immediate visual feedback (the program has hooks for displaying graphic output as it creates bitmaps, but I never saw them implemented on any platform). Adobe's internal tools (based on illustrator) and later Fontographer were the nails in the coffin. I remember talking about MF with Sumner Stone in 1989 or 1990 and he was blunt about how the Adobe design team considered it a dead end because they needed to directly manipulate the visual representation of the typefaces.

Tomte 6y ago

I agree that the "brush with a stroke" is the first thing you see when you look at Metafont and the first examples in the Metafontbook, but in real projects (like Computer Modern) you're using the brush to draw an outline, so there isn't much difference anymore (except for the fact that you're moving a shape across the outline instead of a zero-dimensional point, and that is unconventional, but really helps).

drfuchs 6y ago
Fair enough, but they sure groused about it at the time.
- dhosek 6y ago
  Wait, I just noticed your id. drfuchs as in David Fuchs? The inventor of the GF file format? I don't remember if we ever met in person back in the day but hi!
  - drfuchs 6y ago
    Yes, that would be me. Usually folks bring up DVI, but thanks for the GF shout-out! For the record, as a real user of Metafont, all of your comments on this page are more informed than mine. (And, hi, Don!)
    - dhosek 6y ago
      I remember when I wrote DVIview for VM/CMS being jealous of the fact that your initials were valid hex and mine weren't. (And for those not in the know, David also created the DVI format.)

dhosek 6y ago

The biggest reason for MF's not catching on was the lack of immediate visual feedback (the program has hooks for displaying graphic output as it creates bitmaps, but I never saw them implemented on any platform). Adobe's internal tools (based on illustrator) and later Fontographer were the nails in the coffin. I remember talking about MF with Sumner Stone in 1989 or 1990 and he was blunt about how the Adobe design team considered it a dead end because they needed to directly manipulate the visual representation of the typefaces.