Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 24 2017, @03:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-no-but-... dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Ligatures in programming fonts — a misguided trend I was hoping would collapse under its own illogic. But several readers have already sent me this new argument in favor.

Let me save you some time:

Ligatures in programming fonts are a terrible idea.

And not because I’m a purist or a grump. (Some days, but not today.) Programming code has special semantic considerations. Ligatures in programming fonts are likely to either misrepresent the meaning of the code, or cause miscues among readers. So in the end, even if they’re cute, the risk of error isn’t worth it.

There are good reasons we have Unicode and this is NOT one of them.

Source: http://tinyletter.com/mbutterick/letters/q-ligatures-in-programming-fonts-a-hell-no


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:48PM (#543860)

    Similar was built into early typesetting software Scribe / Scribble (the DOS version), then into FinalWordII and Borland Sprint wordprocessing. To get the math symbols I wanted, I could combine characters to overprint. Also allowed substitution of printable characters for something that would display on a VT100 character mapped screen -- I'd look at some odd extended-ascii symbol, but print the Greek I wanted on paper or to Postscript.

    At the top of the master file (for some big manual) there was a block of definitions.