Department of Public Affairs – BT-002

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by chilie on Monday January 30, 2023 @07:41PM (#34589098)

Am I alone in disliking ligatures? I want a font that displays the characters I type in exactly the form I type them. I really don't see the appeal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by iaabtpbtpnn on Monday January 30, 2023 @07:43PM (#34589123)

I just posted exactly the same thing with more words. Totally agree with you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by amake on Monday January 30, 2023 @08:02PM (#34589316)

Then don't use them. They are always optional, and in fact usually require opt-in via editor settings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by neilpanchal on Monday January 30, 2023 @08:13PM (#34589428)

We talked about ligatures in-depth in BT-001 bulletin: https://berkeleygraphics.com/public-affairs/bulletins/BT-001...

In short, we think 1 keypress = 1 symbol printed on the screen. That explicitness brings peace. But, we also think that ligatures are optional and many people like them (read about all the pros and cons in the link above).

That makes everyone happy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by epgui on Monday January 30, 2023 @10:23PM (#34590470)

> and many people like them

I love them and can barely tolerate not having them. These ligatures of yours filled my heart with joy. Thank you!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Department of Public Affairs – BT-002 by nbk_2000 on Monday January 30, 2023 @08:38PM (#34589666)

You are not alone. While I can imagine a feasible use for some very commonly used glyph combinations being made a ligature, I just really prefer the one glyph per key press presentation (kerning them well OTOH is always greatly appreciated). Unicode in text editors still bugs me in that way, in the back of my mind I know that pretty non-ASCII character is taking up more than a byte, and it's... distracting.

[ Parent | on HN ]