Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

POST YOUR SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING STYLE

Name: OP !!s15PQp1KDxpnAmH 2007-07-23 21:40 ID:Gh0XGG7m

/prog/rammers, what does your typical code window look like?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 17:11 ID:84uvuqq/

>>119
<3 imagemagick and amarok

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 17:12 ID:2aRw7S3u

>>119
lol @ mac icons

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 18:53 ID:/9jomTwb

I don't see the appeal in Emacs. It seems to me like a standard text editor, with fancy colouring. May as well just use notepad.exe, since their basically the same.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 18:54 ID:Heaven

>>123

I don't see the appeal in text editors. It seems to me like a standard application with fancy colouring. May as well just write on paper since they're* essentially the same.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 18:58 ID:Heaven

>>124
I don't see the appeal in /prog/. It seems to me like a

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 19:26 ID:Heaven

>>123
You don't belong here. GTFO!

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 20:00 ID:ZnjvARCK

>>123

I don't see the point either. Last time I used it I was incredibly underwhelmed.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-29 23:19 ID:NCujjbyQ

>>115-118
actually, i don't read it very often... i don't do much coding now that i have a girlfriend.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 0:37 ID:4rLbvdG2

>>114
Pretty stupid.

>>128
You don't belong here. I've declined more girls in favour of code than you've ever spoken to (but seriously, I have done that a few times and it is LOL).

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 0:38 ID:Od/QSwlL

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 3:37 ID:nH5humsv

>>130 your letters appear to be touching.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 4:26 ID:4rLbvdG2

>>131
Meh, text is shite on X. You wouldn't believe how shit it can be.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 5:27 ID:8r03WXuP

>>132
If you don't use xft, yes.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 8:35 ID:Heaven

>>132
what's really amazing is that windows somehow manages to make text look even worse.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 11:52 ID:Heaven

>>134
If you really think that you are a complete idiot. Nothing further.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 12:23 ID:Heaven

>>135
see >>35 (shitty non-antialiased text) and >>37 (blurry shit makes my eyes bleed)

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 12:40 ID:dZWLKi1B

>>119
Text done correctly.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 13:16 ID:Heaven

Sparing you the sight of the default gvim color scheme, I'll just mention that Dina is the best programming font ever. Wish I had it for Linux.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 14:29 ID:Heaven

>>138

[spoiler]DejaVu[/spoiler]

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 17:15 ID:rnMR6qv2

>>136
That's failtialiased text with that ugly RGB hack. It doesn't need to be like that. By using the usual antialiasing in xft or the traditional renderer in Windows, you get beautiful, smooth, sharp enough letters. If you can't see this, you fail.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 17:58 ID:uFjL1cK+

>>119
/r/ your emacs color scheme

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-30 23:27 ID:On3poQcX

>>140
post screenshots of nicely antialiased text on windows or retract.
OS X has shitty antialiasing, too.

what is it with proprietary closed source operating systems always looking like shit?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 0:01 ID:Hdrxi4Gz

>>141
(color-theme-charcoal-black)

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 0:19 ID:zYiT2QDF

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 2:00 ID:+BN9eaQa

>>143
Hey cheers mate. I am now using that theme, very nice.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 6:01 ID:uhB8Kp9r

>>144
not as bad as >>37, but still looks blurry and makes my eyes hurt after looking at it for about 10 seconds.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 6:15 ID:p6QqbPmJ

I don't understand what the big deal is with anti-aliasing. Are your eyes really that fucked up? For me, it's a complete non-issue.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 6:33 ID:+BN9eaQa

>>147
I think it's supposed to make it more natural. I.e. to look like ink and pencil on paper. And I think shapes look more like they are supposed to with antialiasing. Without, it's like looking at some lettering in lego blogs. It's legible, but it takes that extra whatever so many milliseconds longer to process because (1) it's not really the precise shape, it just resembles it and (2) because it's just not what you are used to reading. You end up concentrating on the sharp edges as opposed to the shape as a whole. Plus with antialiasing the lines are just that bit thicker, but not bold.

That's my interpretation of it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 6:42 ID:+BN9eaQa

>>147,148

E.g.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1496/exampleng4.png

Even at the first parenthesis, I'm very aware that it is composed of three parts. Whereas in the one below, it's just a shape.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:04 ID:QDOJ/I81

>>149

But the bottom one looks all blurry, whereas the top one is nice and sharp.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:16 ID:gdOFEGLa

>>150
What the fuck is wrong with your eyes?
The bottom one is smooth while the top one is pixelated

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:27 ID:+BN9eaQa

>>151
I concur, >>150's eyes are fucked.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:32 ID:yLKdbUHs

>>150 I concur, bottom one is blurry...It may be smoother but it's harder to read.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:34 ID:yLKdbUHs

"There do exist people with no strong feelings on the matter, but for those who do feel strongly, there is no middle ground. The problem is that both camps are right. Anti-aliased text is fuzzy and blurry. But it’s also true that it is smoother. Anti-aliasing is an illusion – the illusion of higher resolution than is actually available. Unfortunately, the illusion doesn’t work well for everyone."

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:37 ID:fDhtJTUw

It makes sense if you think about it: how could it ever be possible that a simulated edge appear sharper than a physical edge?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:49 ID:6NB+Yud3

[spoilers]IT DEPENDS ON YOUR MONITOR AND RESOLUTION[/spoilers]

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 7:50 ID:+BN9eaQa

>>154
Source or never happened.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 8:33 ID:Heaven

>>156
There is no ``s'' in [spoiler]

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 8:35 ID:68qifGEP

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-31 8:37 ID:6NB+Yud3

>>159
Maybe, but fonts are ugly or there's some other shit going on, eitherway it doesn't look good.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List