|
Hmmm, interesting, like comic sans, I would be interested to hear what a genuine strong dyslexic opinion of it. I am guessing it's the difference in the font that makes it easy to read when contrasted against a standard...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I am dyslexic, however I found that font really easy to read.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Larger spacing, large font; would be a bit weird if that's hard to read. Not going to use it in the IDE for code, since it seems to waste/require a lot of space.
willichan wrote: I am now in the process of converting all of my code to default to or recommend downloading the font. Mostly doing WinApps, where the user can configure their own font and colors using simple windows-configuration, which has been around for years.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I also find it less readable than most common fonts... perhaps you are a closet dyslexic?
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know … but it's not my preference as it has some unusual impact on my eyes ...
|
|
|
|
|
willichan wrote: I am not dyslexic, You might actually be. That font is annoying to my eyes.
But cool link.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
willichan wrote: I am finding it so easy to read.
Yuck. Not eye!
|
|
|
|
|
I am finding all the feedback very interesting. Everyone I have shown it to agrees that it is easier to read. Admittedly, showing it to a dozen or so personal contacts does not make for a very good sampling. Given the number of people that don't seem to like it, I will have to rethink making it a default. I will definitely make it an available option though.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback ... from both sides. I sometimes forget that I should not only think outside of the box, but occasionally get out of my box and see what other people think.
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know you are dead - the pain is only felt by others.
The same thing happens when you're stupid.
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in a lot of pain...
Technician
1. A person that fixes stuff you can't.
2. One who does precision guesswork based on unreliable data provided by those of questionable knowledge.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in a lot of stupid.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't feel any pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: You don't know you are dead After my father died I still needed to ask him questions and still occasionally talk to him to this day. He's never actually answered, but if he ever does - that's when I'll know I'm dead!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is truly dead while you remember them.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Let me guess - some dead guy said that?
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know you are dead - the pain is only felt by others the joy, the relief, for your friends and family at your final exit may last as long as they live.
FTFY
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
The same thing happens when you're stupid....
still applies!
I, for one, like Roman Numerals.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you so much peace, as the one you leave behind
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! I've had that quote on my signature for a while now. Great quote!
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid."
Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn.
Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning.
Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
modified 19-Nov-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I would include:
Clueless: An individual without knowledge ... but, who has the intelligence, and resources, to learn ... who does not realize there is a need to learn, or, is unaware there is a deficit in their knowledge.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
At least the dead don't go around telling others they're more alive than the rest of them.
|
|
|
|
|
The story listed in Daily news yesterday: Researchers find bug in Python script may have affected hundreds of studies[^] raised discussions in the coffee corner: How could numerical results depend on in which order files were processed? It is not immediately obvious.
My guess: File names reflected some significant of ordering of, say, observations that gradually focused on some target, similar to a mathematical series expansion. When summing a long series, you start from the "small" end, not the "big" end, or you might loose a large number of small values that are insignificant one by one, but the sum of thousands of them can be quite significant. Adding elements in random order can loose small values.
When traversing an array by a foreach, you expect to get the elements by increasing indexes. Assume that there then comes a new implmentation processing all array elements simultaneously on a highly parallell machine (assume that the handling of each element is independent of the others, no locking issues). Partial results are returned in arbitrary order. This would be similar to processing files in arbitrary order.
A few (5-10?) years ago, I read a description of a new language that makes it explicit that with a foreach, or other set/array operation, the runtime system may process all elements in parallel if several processing units are available. (The compiler have to verify that there is access conflicts.) You can NOT rely on a foreach being sequential, or that the same modification added to all elements of an array is done row-wise or column-wise.
But which language was this about? All I remember is that it came from some large actor, such as Google. In today's description of Go on Wikipedia, I do not see this mentioned. Did I read about a different language? Or did I read some paper that was a proposal for what became Go, but this part of it was dropped from the language defintion? I found no programming language description in Wikipedia that matched my memory.
|
|
|
|
|
You're better off making that a comment on the article in the news forum itself.
modified 17-Oct-19 17:53pm.
|
|
|
|