3 ms·
I'm too dumb as well. I flipped this to make it about text editors. Personally, I love my Emacs: This, like almost all writing about fonts, is bewildering to m
by wmedrano 10mo ago
I'm too dumb as well. I flipped this to make it about text editors. Personally, I love my Emacs:
This, like almost all writing about fonts, is bewildering to me. It just doesn't matter. For me, there are just 3 text editors in the world: IDE's, terminal editors, and weird editors (Ed, Teco, etc.)
What's even more strange is reading strong opinions on how great Emacs is, or how terrible NeoVim is ("Gnu good Apache bad", I know.) They're the same thing! I guess I'm too dumb to notice the subtle differences between Lisp and Lua.
- commandlinefan 10mo ago> about text editors I get where you're coming from, but the analogy sort of breaks down here - those of us who work with text editors all the time love our tool of choice because it has features that make our lives easier. I can't see how a font could have or lack a "feature".
- caseyohara 10mo ago> I can't see how a font could have or lack a "feature" Oh boy. Everything about a typeface is a feature, and many of them are functional and not just stylistic choices. - Monospace glyphs are a feature almost everyone here is familiar with and appreciates. - Serifs are a feature for readability - Open apertures like in humanist fonts are more readable - Closed apertures in grotesque fonts make the text more dense - Stroke contrast - X-height - Variety of weights - Ligatures - Dotted or slashed zero to distinguish it from capital O - Features to distinguish capital I and lowercase l glyphs ...these are all features of a typeface.
- OuterVale 10mo agoNot to mention all the far-out OpenType features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typographic_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typographic_features