7 ms·

I suppose some might say the code looks cleaner with ligatures and they better convey the meaning of the code (e.g. ≠ is easier to understand than !=). Persona

by ldjb 6y ago

I suppose some might say the code looks cleaner with ligatures and they better convey the meaning of the code (e.g. ≠ is easier to understand than !=). Personally, however, I like to see exactly what it is I am typing, exactly which symbols are being used. Ligatures distort that. Ligatures are fine when reading prose, but I find them too confusing when coding. That's a personal preference, though. I'm sure some people have no problem with them. I expect a significant proportion of programmers do not like coding using fonts with ligatures, so it's interesting that this website only provides the ability to filter fonts to display only those with ligatures. I would have liked the option to only display fonts WITHOUT ligatures.

robertbalent 6y ago
I believe all of these fonts can be used without ligatures. If I want to use ligatures, I have to explicitly enable it in my code editor.
RobertKerans 6y ago
That's not how ligatures work. You have to explicitly turn open type features on, they aren't automatic. They are additions to the character set. Edit: Unless your reason for checking is that you explicitly want a marginally smaller file (possibly just at bytes level) to download (in which case just use one of the many online tools providing subsetting to strip unicode ranges and do something like remove everything except basic ascii?) there's no real point filtering for fonts without ligatures because, practically, that's just all of them
throwaway2245 6y ago
> ≠ is easier to understand than != I respectfully disagree with this claim. It's conventional code notation that != is a Boolean test for (in)equality; that convention doesn't apply to ≠, which is overloaded in mathematics.
- kps 6y ago
  It's C notation. Other languages use other notations like ~= or /= or <>. And any conceptual overloading of ≠ is a tiny fraction of the problem with = (it's too bad ASCII'67 dropped the ASCII'63 ← in favor of _).
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    The != notation has become pretty standard in most common programming languages. What exceptions are there in the top 20 development languages? VBA? But, taking your point, a ligature ≠ would be overloaded in representing != and ~= and /= and <> and becomes potentially very risky.
    - recursive 6y ago
      SQL for one.
      - julesnp 6y ago
        Also MATLAB: ~= Delphi: <> And if you go a bit beyond top 20, there's Haskell: /=
Chris_Newton 6y ago
Personally, however, I like to see exactly what it is I am typing, exactly which symbols are being used. Ligatures distort that. I feel the same way. I do think I would enjoy programming in a language that used a slightly more extended set of real characters, as long as we had solid editor and font support so typing and viewing them wasn’t going to be an issue for anyone. For example, I’d like to finally have ≠, ≤ and ≥ lining up neatly with =, < and > in my code! I could imagine a few other carefully chosen and easily recognisable symbols, such as ∈ and true arrows, being helpful for readability as well. But the world speaks in Unicode these days, so assuming there was adequate tool and font support, I think writing these characters for real would be much better than relying on ligatures. Even where ligatures are supported, they tend to use awkwardly wide glyphs to replace multi-character combinations so they don’t break alignment in a monospace font, and sometimes the fonts with programming ligatures seem to join certain combinations in bizarre ways just because they can, even when there’s no apparent need for it.
- kps 6y ago
  I feel the same way. Ligatures in coding fonts are a poor workaround for bad keyboard layouts. If you want to see ≠ then type ≠. Julia is the only ‘major’ language I know that supports most such characters.
  - zingplex 6y ago
    Haskell has a language extension that does the same thing [1]. Now all you need is a keyboard with good unicode coverage [2]. [1] https://wiki.haskell.org/Unicode-symbols https://wiki.haskell.org/Unicode-symbols [2] https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EKfCI8QuAaM/S7L-baZ-ZVI/AAAAAAAADlg/A7gggwUIRSQ/s1600/JD1C0014.JPG https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EKfCI8QuAaM/S7L-baZ-ZVI/AAAAAAAAD...
    - kps 6y ago
      It's unfortunate that keyboard input is an afterthought for most systems. OS X is probably the best overall, with easy installation (with one gotcha for development) and SIL Ukelele being a decent editor. XKB is tolerable, overcomplicated in some ways and limited in others (really needing a layout to be paired with an .XCompose), but Linux Desktops™ make it painful to configure any layout that doesn't ship with their system.
bstar77 6y ago
To each his own I guess... I find ligatures show intent, are easier to identify and help instantly identify typos (== vs ===). I also find the things that ligatures replace are usually ugly "programming specific" sequences of characters. For instance, arrow functions look much better with their respective ligature because the equals and greater than characters are guaranteed to be aligned perfectly. I'm primarily working in Javascript, so it may make more sense to use ligatures in my dev environment. And, as others have said, ligatures need to be explicitly enabled in your editor.

by ldjb 6y ago

robertbalent 6y ago

I believe all of these fonts can be used without ligatures. If I want to use ligatures, I have to explicitly enable it in my code editor.

RobertKerans 6y ago

That's not how ligatures work. You have to explicitly turn open type features on, they aren't automatic. They are additions to the character set. Edit: Unless your reason for checking is that you explicitly want a marginally smaller file (possibly just at bytes level) to download (in which case just use one of the many online tools providing subsetting to strip unicode ranges and do something like remove everything except basic ascii?) there's no real point filtering for fonts without ligatures because, practically, that's just all of them

throwaway2245 6y ago

> ≠ is easier to understand than != I respectfully disagree with this claim. It's conventional code notation that != is a Boolean test for (in)equality; that convention doesn't apply to ≠, which is overloaded in mathematics.

kps 6y ago
It's C notation. Other languages use other notations like ~= or /= or <>. And any conceptual overloading of ≠ is a tiny fraction of the problem with = (it's too bad ASCII'67 dropped the ASCII'63 ← in favor of _).
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  The != notation has become pretty standard in most common programming languages. What exceptions are there in the top 20 development languages? VBA? But, taking your point, a ligature ≠ would be overloaded in representing != and ~= and /= and <> and becomes potentially very risky.
  - recursive 6y ago
    SQL for one.
    - julesnp 6y ago
      Also MATLAB: ~= Delphi: <> And if you go a bit beyond top 20, there's Haskell: /=

Chris_Newton 6y ago

Personally, however, I like to see exactly what it is I am typing, exactly which symbols are being used. Ligatures distort that. I feel the same way. I do think I would enjoy programming in a language that used a slightly more extended set of real characters, as long as we had solid editor and font support so typing and viewing them wasn’t going to be an issue for anyone. For example, I’d like to finally have ≠, ≤ and ≥ lining up neatly with =, < and > in my code! I could imagine a few other carefully chosen and easily recognisable symbols, such as ∈ and true arrows, being helpful for readability as well. But the world speaks in Unicode these days, so assuming there was adequate tool and font support, I think writing these characters for real would be much better than relying on ligatures. Even where ligatures are supported, they tend to use awkwardly wide glyphs to replace multi-character combinations so they don’t break alignment in a monospace font, and sometimes the fonts with programming ligatures seem to join certain combinations in bizarre ways just because they can, even when there’s no apparent need for it.

kps 6y ago
I feel the same way. Ligatures in coding fonts are a poor workaround for bad keyboard layouts. If you want to see ≠ then type ≠. Julia is the only ‘major’ language I know that supports most such characters.
- zingplex 6y ago
  Haskell has a language extension that does the same thing [1]. Now all you need is a keyboard with good unicode coverage [2]. [1] https://wiki.haskell.org/Unicode-symbols https://wiki.haskell.org/Unicode-symbols [2] https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EKfCI8QuAaM/S7L-baZ-ZVI/AAAAAAAADlg/A7gggwUIRSQ/s1600/JD1C0014.JPG https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EKfCI8QuAaM/S7L-baZ-ZVI/AAAAAAAAD...
  - kps 6y ago
    It's unfortunate that keyboard input is an afterthought for most systems. OS X is probably the best overall, with easy installation (with one gotcha for development) and SIL Ukelele being a decent editor. XKB is tolerable, overcomplicated in some ways and limited in others (really needing a layout to be paired with an .XCompose), but Linux Desktops™ make it painful to configure any layout that doesn't ship with their system.

bstar77 6y ago

To each his own I guess... I find ligatures show intent, are easier to identify and help instantly identify typos (== vs ===). I also find the things that ligatures replace are usually ugly "programming specific" sequences of characters. For instance, arrow functions look much better with their respective ligature because the equals and greater than characters are guaranteed to be aligned perfectly. I'm primarily working in Javascript, so it may make more sense to use ligatures in my dev environment. And, as others have said, ligatures need to be explicitly enabled in your editor.