News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Go fonts. Parent comment

Re:Go fonts by userbinator on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @09:51PM (#12973839)
I think the rendering is horrible too, with plenty of colour fringing and unevenness.

The monospace font reminds me of the generic "Asian product manual font" - although the individual shapes are slightly different, it has a similar feeling to MS Mincho:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jul/att-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go fonts by honkhonkpants on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @10:08PM (#12973899)
Images of the way a font was rendered on some output device are always going to look weird and wrong on another one.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go fonts by TheOtherHobbes on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @10:18PM (#12973948)
The monospace is kind of okay, I guess, but considering the competition there's nothing special about it. Many users will be coding with colour keyword support anyway, so the idea that it's going to be super-great for Go code is strange.

I found the proportional font really hard to read.

It's not as if Google can't do good typography:

https://fonts.google.com/about

So this seems like a rather self-indulgent and not wholly successful side project.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go fonts by 4ad on Thursday November 17, 2016 @06:05AM (#12976337)
You do realise that B&H designed the original OS X system font, Lucida Grande, right?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go fonts by enneff on Thursday November 17, 2016 @04:09PM (#12981590)
And also the original MacOS font, Chicago!
[ Parent | on HN ]