They would still line up, wouldn’t they? Or am I misunderstanding how the texture healing would work… Would they not take the same total amount of space?
Comment on Monaspace - Microsoft presents a new font family for code
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I like all of it, except for that awful “texture healing”. Imagine having words above and below:
i=mins w=maxs
And the m’s being slightly widths and not lining up with each other 🤢
wethegreenpeople@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Andy@programming.dev 10 months ago
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Each line takes up the same total space but the “m” in “mi” would be wider than the m in “ma”
OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 10 months ago
Here’s your code example in the editor. I don’t personally think the difference between the 'm’s is super noticable. But what did strike me a lot more is the difference between the two 'i’s in the first line.
Image
murtaza64@programming.dev 10 months ago
It looks like it’s not an actual height difference, but the smaller width makes the second i look significantly smaller than the first, also implying a lower height.
OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 10 months ago
True, they are the exact same height. Holy optical illusion, Batman!
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Welp, another reason I will absolutely not be using glyph-streching or whatever Microsoft called it.
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
thanks for rendering that! and yeah that height difference is really weird. That almost seems like a bug.
Also Idk if the ='s make the m smaller or bigger. If the streching is so small as to be unnoticable then I also don’t really understand the purpose.
OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 10 months ago
Typically, the idea behind this sort of design is that it should be unnoticeable. The motivation is that, with other monospace fonts, the differences in character width, along with the inconsistent spacing and line thicknesses are both noticable and distracting. Some of this badness is avoidable, and this is what this font attempts.
I’ve been informed, (and had to double check because I didn’t believe it,) that the two "i"s are actually the exact same height. The first looking larger than the second is an optical illusion. Font design is hard.
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Eh I don’t really buy the noticeable argument. Either it’s not noticeable both ways (doesn’t matter that m is squished all the time) or it’s not noticeable both ways (expanding m doesn’t align).
Wait no, its the fault of the stretching! I mean yes, the i’s are the same hight (which is shocking, thank you for correcting us on that) but the reason it’s an optical illusion is because the i on the left is wider and wide m exaggerates the thinness of the i on the right! Turn off the stretching and suddenly the i’s look the same height.
This is what I meant by “feeling like my editor is gaslighting me”