Hack
Hack copied to clipboard
source-foundry
Any plan to create compressed/condensed or thin styles?
I enjoy PragmataPro, which is relatively thin, so if you can create compressed/condensed styles for it, I would appreciate that.
Do you mean thinner strokes or narrower horizontal spacing between the characters?
I don't exactly understand the meaning of your expression.
You don't have to change anything, just make the width smaller or height bigger, you can google "compressed/condensed font " for images of those kinds of fonts, many fonts consist of regular, italic, bold, compressed/condensed, and maybe even more complicated font styles combined of those basic styles.
Interested to know if you want the individual glyph shapes to appear narrower (i.e. finer like a thin style font) or if you want narrower spacing between glyphs so that they appear closer together (a condensed set).
When you already made characters narrower, if you don't make them closer, the big space between characters would make your code/text extremely ugly.
There are no immediate plans to support a thin set. Let's leave this open and see if we can attack it down the road.
The space between characters of compressed/condensed could just be the same as the regular style, no need to be smaller than regular.
Hey @chrissimpkins, I was about to open an issue with this same request. I think what @c02y is trying to say is just that it would be nice to have a set with thinner strokes. For example, I currently use Source Code Pro and prefer to go all the way to ExtraLight. I love the look of Hack but I've gotten so used to a thin stroke that it seems bold to me :wink:
I'm not a font designer so I could be totally wrong, but it doesn't appear that a thin set would require any sort of spacing changes. It should be similar to creating a bold set but on the other end of the spectrum.
Thanks @davidcelis and @c02y. I understand. Let me look into whether there is a reasonably straightforward interpolation approach that we could use. Unfortunately this isn't (/may not be) a simple request and may require a manual draw of an entirely new set.
I believe @c02y is actually after a condensed version, whereas @davidcelis is after a set with, like he said thinner strokes. I would like to +1 for thinner strokes — especially on retina displays I find light variants are much nicer to read.
Have been looking into this in more detail over the last week. I think that this may be possible. Will update here.
I was also looking to move from Source Code Pro, which is what I use everywhere. Using Hack is nice in my IDE, but I prefer a lighter font weight for terminals and IRC. I would love to see this, since then I could use Hack everywhere!
@jkcclemens Thanks Kyle. We are working on improvements to the current sets over the next several releases and then will revisit this, if even to begin a smaller character set release and build simultaneously from there. Will post here when we have something for you.
Hey, +1 for the condensed/compressed set (like PragmataPro or Input Mono Compessed) ;)
Also, nice work on Hack!
@rodrigogolive thanks for your feedback! This is something that we will definitely consider down the road. We are in the process of implementing a significant change in our build tool chain and have a number of planned changes in the current sets. Once things settle out with these primary areas of focus we will definitely revisit this issue.
PragmataPro and Input Mono Compessed are my only fonts for my Emacs after testing a lot of fonts.
On November 28, 2015 12:15:18 AM GMT+08:00, Rodrigo Oliveira [email protected] wrote:
Hey, +1 for the condensed/compressed set (like PragmataPro or Input Mono Compessed) ;)
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/48#issuecomment-160168570
Will the two of you push some screenshots so that we can see what you are seeing (and want)
Sure thing, @chrissimpkins. Here's what a normal weight font (Source Code Pro, for example) would look like:
And here's what Source Code Pro looks like when set to Extra Light (which is what I personally use):
No problem! There are more examples of weight differences here, from 200 to 900 in increments of 100: https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Source+Code+Pro
Thanks for the snapshots, but I'm afraid I'm have to tell your that these are not what I'm talking about at all, these are just normal and light fonts, not compressed/condensed, I have no access to my personal computer right now, I'll post them here tomorrow.
-------- 原始邮件 -------- 发件人：David Celis [email protected] 时间：周六 11月28日 08:03 收件人：chrissimpkins/Hack [email protected] 抄送：c02y [email protected] 主题：Re: [Hack] Any plan to create thin styles? (#48)
Sure thing, @chrissimpkins. Here's what a normal weight font (Source Code Pro, for example) would look like:
And here's what Source Code Pro looks like when set to Extra Light (which is what I personally use):
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/48#issuecomment-160228154
Hey @chrissimpkins, I'm adding some screenshots of my environment, all of them using the same settings for the fonts (the code snippet is from the live preview of Input):
PragmataPro:
Input (on their site there are a configurator that helps to mimic the feel of other fonts):
Hack:
I like Hack, it's pretty nice to use, but when developing (~80% of my time in front of a computer), I miss the condensed style of the other fonts.
@rodrigogolive thank you very much! This is very helpful to see how tight things are in your working fonts.
Are you generally in a small terminal window rather than a full screen editor? Is the intent more glyphs per width or is it the appearance that you prefer?
You're welcome @chrissimpkins! i am used to have a full screen terminal (generally 1920x1080), running a terminal multiplexer (tmux), so I can quickly run/edit/navigate on them. Here are two new screenshots at this resolution, with a current project so you can see the differences (just resized a little, as the intent is to show the difference of the font on screen).
Hack (attention on the top panel, vim vertical splits):
PragmataPro (same environment, with this style of font I can have an additional vim split):
When developing, I prefer to have more glyphs per width, but I'm OK with the appearance on other tasks. But, as I'm developing at the most of the time, a compressed/thin style is better for me ;)
@rodrigogolive These are my screenshots in my Emacs, a little difference from yours, I think it is caused by your teminal:
PragmataPro
Input Mono Compressed
Hack
Oh GOD, these three pics took me several hours to upload to Github, always says file type not supported, but they are just jpeg or png.
@c02y wow, you really do like it tightly set. Just to confirm, these are all at the same font size? The glyphs look larger for Hack. This may be an x-height difference or just a visual distortion based upon the narrower glyph widths in the condensed fonts you are showing.
@c02y and I'll ask the same question, are you trying to achieve more glyphs per width or you simply have a preference for this appearance in your text?
And final question for the day... how does Hack look to you if you take the font size down a few pixels? There will be a point where you will achieve the same character / width threshold. With the large counters and x-height on these glyphs you can get away with pretty small font sizes in many cases (platform/display/renderer dependent). The sacrifice will be in the height of the glyphs, but they may actually be more clear because of the wider relative fixed width than in the condensed fonts. I see issues with the glyphs like the wand m in those condensed font screenshots. These are notoriously problematic in fixed width fonts because they need space between the strokes to display well on the screen.