"Hack" Typeface Is Open Source, Easy On the IDEs
"Ars Technica writes that "At SourceFoundry.org this week, programmer Chris Simpkins debuted the 2.0 version of Hack, an open-source typeface designed specifically for use in source code." The revamped font is" characterized by a large x-height, wide aperture, and low contrast design in order to be "highly legible" at common coding text sizes," and the font specimen shows how legible it is right down to downright tiny sizes, though Simpkins says the sweet spot is between 8 and 12 pixels. " -- source: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/08/30/1733217 Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace. Here's a howto for Mint on installing a new font: http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/29 Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:35 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced
Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace.
Just tried it in Emacs. The regular style looks very spaced-out compared to monospace. The bold style is more compact, but of course blacker.
Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced
Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace.
Just tried it in Emacs. The regular style looks very spaced-out compared to monospace. The bold style is more compact, but of course blacker.
What font size did you use? I used 10 and there were only minor differences in spacing. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:06:29PM +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:35 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced
Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace.
Just tried it in Emacs.
Same here. Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs. Cheers Michael.
Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced
Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace.
Just tried it in Emacs.
Same here.
Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs.
Looks good in gvim. ;-) set guifont=Hack,10 You refreshed the font cache? Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:26:34PM +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Very subtle differences in comparison to "monospace", from a quick comparison: - the dash "-" is longer - the "*" has five points rather than six - the "i" looks more like an "l" (not so sure about this change, though) - the stroke inside the zero is more pronounced
Using Hack in a terminal seems a bit clearer than monospace.
Just tried it in Emacs.
Same here.
Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs.
Looks good in gvim. ;-)
set guifont=Hack,10
You refreshed the font cache?
Yes, ran the fc-cache command. Emacs, for some disastrous reason, inserts extra space between each character so that it looks, well..., very spaced out. It's awful. I wonder why emacs does that! Cheers Michael.
Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs.
Looks good in gvim. ;-)
set guifont=Hack,10
You refreshed the font cache?
Yes, ran the fc-cache command.
Emacs, for some disastrous reason, inserts extra space between each character so that it looks, well..., very spaced out. It's awful. I wonder why emacs does that!
Did you install the .otf or .ttf fonts? Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:18:26PM +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs.
Looks good in gvim. ;-)
set guifont=Hack,10
You refreshed the font cache?
Yes, ran the fc-cache command.
Emacs, for some disastrous reason, inserts extra space between each character so that it looks, well..., very spaced out. It's awful. I wonder why emacs does that!
Did you install the .otf or .ttf fonts?
TTF. What's OTF ? Cheers Michael.
Looks good in the terminal but is an utter disaster in emacs.
Looks good in gvim. ;-)
set guifont=Hack,10
You refreshed the font cache?
Yes, ran the fc-cache command.
Emacs, for some disastrous reason, inserts extra space between each character so that it looks, well..., very spaced out. It's awful. I wonder why emacs does that!
Did you install the .otf or .ttf fonts?
TTF. What's OTF ?
"OpenType is a format for scalable computer fonts. It was built on its predecessor TrueType, retaining TrueType's basic structure and adding many intricate data structures for prescribing typographic behavior. OpenType is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType BTW I installed .ttf on my system. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:18:26 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Did you install the .otf or .ttf fonts?
I just tried the .otf instead, and that does space properly in Emacs. The peculiar thing is, the sample that appears in the font-selection dialog is all tofu, but the font does work.
"is all tofu" This is one of the best things I've seen all day. +1 On 31/08/2015 1:52 pm, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.nz> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:18:26 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Did you install the .otf or .ttf fonts?
I just tried the .otf instead, and that does space properly in Emacs.
The peculiar thing is, the sample that appears in the font-selection dialog is all tofu, but the font does work. _______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
participants (4)
-
Eric Light -
Lawrence D'Oliveiro -
Michael Cree -
Peter Reutemann