Slashdot Mirror
Emacsy: An Embeddable Toolkit of Emacs-like Functionality
An anonymous reader writes "Emacsy is 'a Guile library that provides Emacs-like facilities — keymaps, minibuffer, tab completion, recordable macros, and major/minor modes — for applications natively.' However, to my eyes, it looks more like an attempt to revive the development style done on Symbolics Lisp Machines that survives to some extent in Emacs. Might be a boon to Emacs users, but where's a comparable VIM alternative?"
The skeptic in me asks what benefit this would have over just using libguile directly, and how it fits in with efforts to port Emacs itself to Guile and things like Englightenment's pluggable event loop. The example code seems to imply Emacs-like APIs will be used (despite not intending to replace parts of Emacs), even when better alternatives exist. Some of the proposed components seem orthogonal to existing interface toolkits; others seem to compete with components provided by various Free desktop environments.
That should see wide usage...
Now all we need is for someone to use Emacsy to implement vi. That would be totally mindblowing!
And use vi!
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
Blah Blah Blah.
No macro recording? You may as well hold up a toy hammer and claim you can easily build a house with it.
If only, if only other editors would see the power inherent in Emacs macro recording...
Everything else you mention can be done with emacs already.
How horribly sad that we have yet to get GUI code editors that equal, much less exceed, emacs in terms of coding assistance that is possible...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My personal feeling about emacs is it is very beautiful(yes). Let the point-and-click gui-using critics learn a thing or two about why making everything programmable(in a easy way, unlike eclipse) is an awesome idea.
You will never have experience until after you needed it.
Next up: Boot to Emacs. We've always known that Emacs is a great OS with a piss-poor text editor. We need these capabilities baked into hardware. Behold... the EmacsBook Pro!
Breakfast served all day!
Writing a good editor for Emacs... Sounds like a good project!
Let the point-and-click gui-using critics learn a thing or two about why making everything programmable
No-one can really understand this without years of use though. Key bindings (which are widespread) are nice and all but it is as you say, the sheer ease of programability of the thing that makes Emacs so amazingly useful that I still turn to it even these days (though I mostly use integrated text editors now).
Only when emacs becomes really embedded in something modern will other people see the light.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It looks like it would be a huge boost for writing content generation tools for games.
"Emacsy is 'a Guile library that provides Emacs-like facilities"
good?
"However, to my eyes, it looks more like an attempt to revive the development style done on Symbolics Lisp Machines that survives to some extent in Emacs"
and?
"Might be a boon to Emacs users"
They actually exist? I thought people just said that to futility impress people
"The skeptic in me asks what benefit this would have over just using libguile directly"
the non-Luddite in me is still asking what and why?
http://www.gpf-comics.com/archive/2012/05/07
Emacs=Skynet
Slowly but surely it is taking all the code ever written...
Emacs is a good idea buried under a pretty bad implementation.
My complaints are threefold:
* Not mouse friendly. While keyboard shortcuts are awesome, they're very hard to use without practice. Having every option in a menu, somewhere, means that when I want to do some rare thing like "invert the case of these letters", I can just hit Edit->Characters->Toggle Case instead of checking the manual pages to find that it's Control-Meta-i or whatever. If I use that command often enough, I'll learn the shortcut. If not, I'll *never* learn it, and waste half my time in the man pages.
* Incompatible keyboard shortcuts. Most Windows and Mac, and even many Linux programs, all use the same basic keys for basic tasks. Ctrl-A means Select All. Ctrl-V is Paste. Mac just swaps Ctrl for Cmnd. For various historical reasons, Emacs uses completely different key shortcuts for everything. Which causes problems, because I'm never going to be *just* using Emacs. I'll be using Firefox, or SomethingOffice, or something else that almost definitely uses a different set of keys. Which means my mind will always be in "Ctrl-Z = Undo" mode, never "Ctrl-x u = Undo" mode (as an aside, does RMS never mis-type anything, because none of the three "undo" commands are easily entered - Ctrl-X U, Ctrl-/, and Ctrl-_ all suck).
* Ugly interface. Yeah, it's kind of petty, but Emacs looks like crap. If I'm going to be spending 8 hours a day in an editor, can it at least look like a program from *last* decade instead of the one before? (May have been fixed already - I gave up on Emacs years ago, maybe they finally discovered variable-width fonts)
^Zkill -9 %1
Fixed width fonts are a feature not a bug.
Wait, this is a kickstarter project?
That's kind of weird.
it's still ugly.
if you happen to be on a mac, aquamacs does a pretty good job of mixing emacs-style keystrokes with the "normal" ones, cmd-Z, cmd-C, etc.; it also provides pull-down menus. but beyond that, it's still just as ugly, and even after many years i still get the vertigo whenever i have to go into the emacs preferences system.
aquamacs also comes with a lot of nice packages included.
one of the problems with emacs is that it just has way too many commands to fit reasonably in standard menus. aquamacs picks a decent subset but it's still limited.
although i gotta say, i find ctrl-_ to be pretty convenient, and i really like the undo stack.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Actually, I am on a Mac right now. It's normally my backup desktop, but my primary machine's off in the Great /Dev/Null In The Sky and its replacement is taking forever to ship for some reason.
Installing it now, maybe it'll work out well.
You can hardly blame Emacs that programs which came years later chose different keyboard commands.
As for not being keyboard-centric rather than mouse-centric, some of us consider that a feature. Being created before mice has something to do with that of course but having to pull your hands off the keyboard to find the mouse is terribly slow. Yes, there's a bit of effort needed to learn enough to make running Emacs comfortable but when you're there you'll find how painful mice are. By the way, C-/ is only harder than C-z if your right hand is stuck over on the mouse.
And finally variable-width fonts. I sort-of agree with you there. They'd be useful for some thing.
Emacs is awesome, but there are some things that more modern IDEs do that are nice. In Eclipse you can get a list of all calls to a function from the spot where it's defined. I haven't been able to find a way to do that with Emacs. etags works great for jumping to the function definition, but not the other way around.
That's not enough to convert me to a pointy/clicky bloated thing for coding just yet, but at some point, it seems like there will be enough features like that that Emacs - even with a lot of customization - just won't be viable.
If I did move to another editor, at least it would be nice to bring the good parts of Emacs along.
... also, I can kill you with my brain.
You can hardly blame Emacs that programs which came years later chose different keyboard commands.
But I *can* blame it for not giving up and joining the crowd. The only program I regularly use that doesn't use the "Standard Shortcuts" is bash - and the only commands I need to know are ctrl-a, ctrl-e, ctrl-k, ctrl/alt-f, ctrl/alt-b and ctrl-d
As for not being keyboard-centric rather than mouse-centric, some of us consider that a feature. Being created before mice has something to do with that of course but having to pull your hands off the keyboard to find the mouse is terribly slow. Yes, there's a bit of effort needed to learn enough to make running Emacs comfortable but when you're there you'll find how painful mice are. By the way, C-/ is only harder than C-z if your right hand is stuck over on the mouse.
Given a choice between "take my hand off the keyboard to click some menus" and "open a new terminal window, open the man page, and look up the keys I need", I'll take the former every time. Hell, given a choice between reading the manual *again* and just doing it *manually*, I'll probably pick the latter. Which makes all of Emacs' programmability and flexibility pointless.
And maybe it's just my years of gaming showing, but I have no problem switching one hand over to a mouse. It takes maybe a quarter of a second, about as long as it takes to write one word. It's far faster for a huge number of tasks - selecting text especially.
* Not mouse friendly.
It's a text editor. Removing your hands from the keyboard is inefficient and slows you down. Until you have become proficient at this, you don't realize just how inefficient your wish to use the mouse for text editing actually is.
Emacs is a power user tool. For a single purpose, editing text, it is the most powerful and fastest tool available. It's admittedly not well suited for people who want a more casual tool, but there are others you can use for that purpose.
* Incompatible keyboard shortcuts
You do realize that the emacs bindings came first, right?
You have no idea what REAL macro recording is. Sigh.
Tell me exactly, how do you record a search and replace based on text you found around the result of another search?
Or a search that gathers disparate results from multiple files and places the results in a extra comma delimited file?
Or a macro that executes a shell command and uses the output to open a third file?
And then how do you save the macros for later reuse and edit them?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I used microemacs back on the Amiga but the learning curve on it is just so high.
I would TOTALLY agree with that.
Add in that IDEs now do so much more than just editing text
That is also very true. The sad thing is there's no reason Emacs could not be just as helpful, it just never got advanced in quite the same way some popular IDEs did.
That is why what it would take for people to understand emacs is for it to be really embedded into a modern IDE, so that you could keep using the great GUI components while you also slowly learned the textually heavy Emacs world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If your editor has a menu to toggle case of letters then it must have hundreds of menu entries to have something so infrequent show up there. If you really need it you can add it to an Emacs menu easily enough.
Emacs has very compatible short cuts! It is compatible with editing that existed before PCs and Macs existed! So I'd say the Windows editors are the ones who broke compatibility! And by the way I can use my common Emacs movement keys in Firefox just fine, they work in bash, some of them even work in Outlook.
And Ctrl-Z does undo in my emacs.
The interface in Emacs is nice: it's minimal. I don't have 2/3rds of my screen wasted in IDE fluff. I can put three Emacs windows side by side.
Variable width fonts are EVIL. Never use those for programming! If you've got variable width how do you make things line up, and how do you know you haven't exceeded 80 characters? Variable width is for natural language text.
But I *can* blame it for not giving up and joining the crowd.
First, emacs bindings are more customizable than quite possibly anything else.
Second, they are more efficient than the "standard bindings" if you're a touch typist (you don't have to move your hands to the arrow keys to move around with the keyboard, for example), and they provide far more features than same.
It's a power user tool. If you don't have power user needs, and don't want to deal with the steep learning curve, that's fine - there's nothing wrong with that at all. There are plenty of other tools out there, from notepad on up through emacs. You can pick whatever point you want on that curve, I think.
I'm pretty good at the "standard bindings", having been using them since they existed in a wide range of environments, but they just aren't as efficient. I have never - I'll stress this, *never* - been able to watch someone using tools that use those bindings without cringing at how slow they're doing things. Conversely, people who are used to those tools always seem completely blown away by what I can do in emacs.
Not saying the steep learning curve is for everybody. It's clearly not for most people.
I agree with Aquamacs. It's very nice. I went back to XEmacs on my windows machine and it feels a bit clumsy (but then everything on Windows feels clumsy, and FSF Emacs on Windows is even worse). Most of the same stuff they add in Aquamacs can be put into normal Emacs as well as an option, and some are already in Emacs and just need to be switched on.
"Toggle case" is actually somewhat common, and not at all hard to find when it exists. I don't have any of my code-editing programs installed (home computer), but LibreOffice has Format->Change Case->tOGGLE cASE, right next to Sentence case, lower case, UPPER CASE, and Capitalize Every Word. Capitalized just like that, even, for ease of use.
Oh, and I'm not opposed to variable-width fonts for writing code - that is, after all, logical. But monospace text on the "where you are in the file" and "what mode you're in" and "labels for menu items" UI elements? That's kind of dumb, especially since that wastes *more* of your precious screen space.
PS: 80 characters? Give me ONE good reason why I should format my code to meet some ancient teletype-derived limit. Especially when everyone in my office is using at least one 1920x1080 or higher monitor.
Note to self: measure exactly the dimensions occupied by "IDE fluff" next time I'm at work, so I can have some numbers to shut up the "IDEs waste space!" idiots.
Actually I had arguments ten years ago over the 80 space limit, and the person's response as "why can't you get a modern editor that can have longer lines?" He just didn't get it. Long lines are harder to read, it's that simple. It's a courtesy to other programmers, like any other style rule. This person had 200 character lines, he would literally have a line of code all the way across the screen. None of his peers found this easy to read. It wouldn't fit in printouts. People complained in code reviews. But he petulantly kept at it.
Another reason: keeping it at the 80 character limit allows you to open more than one source code window at a time and view them side by side.
I've found people who are opposed to the 80 character norm often do so because they are used to IDEs that take up the whole screen. If you only have one window to write code in, and that window fills up the whole screen no matter what else you do, what's the point of leaving that space blank? Might as well write longer lines.
If you have a real editor, the 80 character norm makes sense.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, it's a classic. Oldtimers (or more often, oldtimer fanboys) trying to change the user interface on the rest of the world to work like their old favorite apps, rather than the other way around. It's so ...
*facepalm*
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
While I'm not an IDE fan, but google before you troll: VS can be scripted (in VB; yeah, it sucks) and has an extensible api, so it can do pretty much all you asked for.
You should format your code that way for the same reason that you shouldn't print normal sized text landscape on letter/A4 paper. Readability.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Emacs has very compatible short cuts! It is compatible with editing that existed before PCs and Macs existed! So I'd say the Windows editors are the ones who broke compatibility!
Windows is just following the CUA standard.
Emacs, though - "compatible" with what?
The interface in Emacs is nice: it's minimal. I don't have 2/3rds of my screen wasted in IDE fluff. I can put three Emacs windows side by side.
Pretty much every IDE I've seen lets you hide or auto-hide toolbars, toolwindows etc.
That said, I personally prefer e.g. the watch and stack windows visible while debugging. Don't you?
ariable width fonts are EVIL. Never use those for programming! If you've got variable width how do you make things line up
By using tabs. Or by using an editor that understands the concept of indentation.
how do you know you haven't exceeded 80 characters?
Most editors these days can draw a line for you. Besides, who cares about 80 characters? On a 27" display, it is a pretty pointless restriction.
Another reason: keeping it at the 80 character limit allows you to open more than one source code window at a time and view them side by side.
Or perhaps we just have screens large enough that we can fit two 150-char wide editor windows side by side.
They can do everything that you've listed (though, of course, such a macro cannot be produced by recording your actions
THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
I can program anything in anything. The beauty of emacs is I can quickly create a very complex macro WITHOUT FUCKING PROGRAMMING ANYTHING.
It may seem minor but the difference is as vast as a billion trillion oceans.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In emacs type "C-x (", then you can do something like:
Start a search
use any functions you please to grab a regex from that line, and put it into a register.
Start another search, paste in the register.
Do something once there.
"C-x )" ends the macro.
Basically the real power comes into play when you realize you have 26 registers to stick either text or cursor positions in, in the middle of the macro - and that macros also record actions in the control field at the bottom (for switching files or whatever).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I'm not an IDE fan, but google before you troll:
I'm not trolling, I just wish people could read the damn text before responding.
I said RECORD. As in RECORD. As in not SCRIPT OR PROGRAM OR DEVELOP. As in RECORD.
Like I said, I can record in emacs searching for something, using some value located around the search (say a quick regex on that line), then copy that and go to some pre-saved point in the file to paste the result.
That may sound contrived but I have for example easily created long list of variable names or altered things like comma separated data in partial ways that would have been hard otherwise, simpler even than using sed or the like... all because I could record a simple transformation to occur, then re-run it on command wherever I liked.
Basically I found it incredibly useful and it is the reason I still sometimes go back into emacs when even SCRIPTABLE editors are just too weak to get something done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
P.S. I used to ALSO write extremely complex macros in VI as well, which is why I know how vastly different it is to be able to record vs. script macros.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Where's the gamemaker guy when you need him? You two should get a room.
You might as well blame everything else for not using Emacs shortcuts, since they were there and used in other software (yes, those bash shortcuts are Emacs shortcuts). I mean really, holding shift to select text? Madness.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
The most interesting thing about Emacs isn't even just the programmability, as a lot of apps have that in one way or another, but the fact that it is self-documentation. It takes literally two clicks to go from any function or keyboard shortcut to the exact line in the source code that defines it (first jumps to the documentation, second to the definition). Nothing else in the Free Software world makes source that easy to access, most don't even try. Blender being the only exception, as that at least gives you documentation on how to access any GUI control via scripting right in the tooltip.
I hate e-macs and especially the "Info" system. If you want to use e-macs, go ahead. But don't
force its arcane user interface on the rest of us via programs like "Info". GNU should learn how
to write real man pages and real "--help" command output. I know that there are some niche
e-macs fans, but does ANYONE beside RMS like "Info"?!? I think that everyone is afraid to tell
the emperor that people hate some of his GNU tools. GNU Info must die.
-- the shy vi guy.
As for not being keyboard-centric rather than mouse-centric, some of us consider that a feature.
Being keyboard centric isn't a problem, quite the opposite. Having a god awful GUI on the other side is a problem. A good interface should slowly teach the users about shortcuts and everything and while Emacs actually does a good job at that (if you M-x a function that has a shortcut, it tells you which), the GUI is scarring users away long before they'll ever find that out.
The problem is that Emacs was kind of state of the art some two decades ago, today on the other side it just shows it's age a little to much. It still has some interesting features that haven't been mimicked much by other application (e.g. self-documentation), but as for the GUI, you'd be hard pressed to find anything that is worse then Emacs.
Micro$oft keyboards have a tiny, hard to reach escape key. They seem to be leaders of, umm, "innovation".
They hate Linux/Unix so much that I think that they are doing it on purpose to make it hard to use things
like "vi" on Linux. Honestly, that's how devious Bill Gates et al. are. Check out their history....And now,
they have a large part of the keyboard market. (I'm still using some ancient, early, split keyboards that
I bought 15 years ago. I've never been able to find anything as good since.)
Windows is just following the CUA standard.
Chrome and recent editions of Firefox badly break the CUA standard (no visible File/Edit menus, F10 does not bring up menu bar, and so on. Unity and Gnome 3 trash its goals of consistent, discoverable interfaces even further. Compared to these, Emacs with its decades-long consistency is a gold standard.
It's a text editor. Removing your hands from the keyboard is inefficient and slows you down. Until you have become proficient at this, you don't realize just how inefficient your wish to use the mouse for text editing actually is.
Emacs is a power user tool. For a single purpose, editing text, it is the most powerful and fastest tool available. It's admittedly not well suited for people who want a more casual tool, but there are others you can use for that purpose.
I think he gets this. I know I do. I myself LOVE having keyboard shortcuts. However, when it's something I don't do very often, I much prefer having the OPTION of having a menu that I can go through to find the command that I need. It means I don't have to go through the manual or look online or in some way leave the window I'm in to find the command I want to use. I can just...do it. Sure, it's slower than knowing the shortcut, so if it's something I'll be doing often, I'll learn the shortcut (assuming it exists). But for tasks you aren't using every day, keyboard shortcuts are MUCH more inefficient than having some sort of graphical interface. Programs are allowed to have BOTH and the ideal program has both.
You do realize that the emacs bindings came first, right?
I hate this way of thinking. It doesn't matter what came first. What matters is what became the standard. There is a reason that a standard set of shortcuts came into existence. That reason is that it makes things easier for users (and more efficient for users). If you only have to know one shortcut for a task, it makes it easier to complete that shortcut without thinking. You don't have to switch your brain over to emacs-mode or everything else-mode to seamlessly use the keyboard shortcuts. And it means that if there is a task you have learned in one program, it's easy to move over to another program when/if you need to.
Emacs is great for what it does and I definitely use it in certain situations, but to act like it couldn't be improved is idiotic. Offering menus (it doesn't even need all the big parts of a "normal' graphical IDE, just menus...they don't take up much screen space) and using the "standard" shortcuts (or even just offering a mode that lets you use them) would make it much more accessible and make it much easier to switch between Emacs and another program (not everyone is able to exist entirely in Emacs). This is a GOOD thing for anyone who isn't a stuck-up elitist who wants things to be this way because "That's how I do it! And that makes it the best!".
Couldn't write a summary about something Emacs without complaining it's not Vim? Really?
Emacs is not for you.
And yet you are missing the joy of having six editors open at a time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you like the undo stack, Undo Tree will blow your mind.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
* You can make the menus in emacs display whatever option or function you want. Also, ido-ubiquitious mode will give you a fuzzy search on a meta-x. So if you can't remember the keyboard shortcut, perhaps you can remember (or guess) some part of the name of the function that does what you need, and quickly find it (with tab completion and everything) - probably even more quickly than you would by searching a menu.
* http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/CuaMode
* Emacs 24 at least (less so in previous versions) has some very pretty themes (tango, misterioso, dichromacy, etc). I've actually grown fond of the aesthetics of emacs now. I used to loathe the look and feel of it too.
And some more points - it might be clear now, but pretty much any complaint or thing you can think of that you don't like about emacs - there's a damn good chance somebody out there has thought the same thing, and written some lisp to change it. With the new package.el being integrated into emacs 24, chances are you can grab the lisp package you need right from inside emacs.
Oh, and emacs has org-mode. Emacs is worth learning just for that alone.
I'm sure you can have 12 open if you trim the lines down even further, but why?
12 might be overkill. If you have more than one window open at a time, you can reference source code in one terminal while writing in another. This is a common workflow. Typically I find I have two or even three files that I am referencing frequently while writing in a project, but sometimes more.
People who are used to this style of working often have trouble at first when they switch to an IDE. Now with things like auto-complete and Intellisense, it isn't as bad as it used to be, because you don't have to remember the full function name, you can get away with remembering only the class name, but back in the days of VS6 and before it was really bad.
For those of us who know how to use multiple windows, once we get used to Intellisense it isn't as bad, but we always miss the multiple windows. Which is why we have the quote, "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What makes Emacs work is muscle memory. After you've used Emacs a year or two, you can do stuff without consciously thinking about it. And Emacs is "future proof" - there is no platform it won't run on. I can use Emacs on Linux, Windows, Mac, etc and it's the same. I even booted up ITS in an emulator and Emacs was pretty much the same. Once you have this muscle memory, you concentrate on what you're doing, not the tool you're using to do it. That's what separates productive developers from the rest. I'm not saying you can't get the same muscle memory in an IDE, but I've seen so many IDEs come and go (how are you Borland C++ IDE users doing these days? and any of you WordStar diamond users still with us?) that I can't imagine any IDE user interface persisting for decades. Plus Emacs has the same user interface for everything, unlike IDEs which - with a few big exceptions like Eclipse and Visual Studio - tend to be language/domain specific.
I've used Emacs since 1991, and the funny thing about it is everyone with their GUIs and IDEs always talks about how -fast- I am when I bang out code or scripts. I actually used Eclipse once, and I can't believe people ever get any work done with it - it seems designed specifically to inhibit software development. (Given Eclipse's origin with IBM's Visual Age - which I called Miserable Age because it was so awful - this is not a surprise.)
Now with things like auto-complete and Intellisense, it isn't as bad as it used to be, because you don't have to remember the full function name, you can get away with remembering only the class name,
Why would you need to remember functions names or class names to use auto-complete? The whole point of the feature is so that you don't need to do that.
For those of us who know how to use multiple windows, once we get used to Intellisense it isn't as bad, but we always miss the multiple windows.
We seem to be going in circles. As I had already noted, it is not at all a problem to open several windows in a modern IDE, and with a good display you can easily do side-by-side with line width much higher than 80.
Then again, when code is properly modular, I don't see the need for that, either. If I need to know the signature of some function that I'm about to write the call for, code completion will provide that (and if it's already written, Ctrl+Space will show it). If I need to know the implementation of that function - to the point where I have to have it opened in side-by-side editor window at all times - that implies overly tight coupling between it and the current one, which is a code smell.
But I *can* blame it for not giving up and joining the crowd.
SUBMIT
CONFORM
OBEY
Why would you need to remember functions names or class names to use auto-complete? The whole point of the feature is so that you don't need to do that.
lol well you can try just pushing control-space, but the list of options that comes up is a bit overwhelming. You'll do better if you can at least remember the first few letters of the class, anyway.
We seem to be going in circles.
Of course, because it is a matter of preference. There is no right answer. If you can't see why other people might have a different preference, then I'm sorry.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course, because it is a matter of preference. There is no right answer. If you can't see why other people might have a different preference, then I'm sorry.
I can certainly understand people having different subjective preferences. But then this whole discussion was spinned off a post that said "Variable width fonts are EVIL". ~
lol sure. Hard to think of a topic that is more subjective than evilness.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."