From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tick Reduction Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:41:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87bl2hyzca.fsf@gnus.org> <8735nszpdv.fsf@gnus.org> <83bl2gwpq8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6269"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 19 14:45:24 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mo4Ci-0001Qj-Jv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:45:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44826 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mo4Cg-0007Vl-MQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:45:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57742) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mo48o-0002Rf-Ce for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:41:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e] (port=33414 helo=mail-pl1-x62e.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mo48m-0002Eg-Ei; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 08:41:22 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id y7so8216923plp.0; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:41:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2SUm8tG6okOATHPCzbqvAiba5MUZpQ7vS43rnusxL9A=; b=h3W/xwMyVDBarXH/tfI2q9sgx5QxmaZ6PaBb8bVX5CMSgVnp7FCkZztR3zggaELNGf kIVaNF1iDL7MgJ3p2ZYXLouulJnQAnel0HoKeOEEcJa3zOEemc8sNlDTUZtrrDuPWVVF JTcbfR3UyCfmw3LV0/bh1PLviOBsgFKFkRjgLv2fv14OWvCc3acmHKROfZckyU68dP2m EVgt/5odyFuiOrKbhUefH9Q7weT2PieySjJd3oln/6S13KIMbKzID25ywoGx/x56FuGJ WMUx5XrPA7m/6VJJNBh/x2mWX+5Nyjha46FMvwzMzBUCi6eH2qv1i0igX28Xlbag8eIr N/TQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2SUm8tG6okOATHPCzbqvAiba5MUZpQ7vS43rnusxL9A=; b=tQcd5wq0+JgXJuqu8pVQ22mZZpKTmrPwa/zt56nfkkN/i24246u2SSj0dkDaIMSMXG iBOShCG0cLx8xJ3ybZ50Zjt0327qkkLDRTYl7MIxzTvggzQVPPwDH4ij2Wrr7ggn4gVm g9E9z62Sc08Xf432rq+C/o9/DAa+dDK/TA/yalKNdlusp5GDGzwr/E6KOWz+8FIIrA+n mzINpOloR4h8VN3mIt8R3MgI4/khwby79oOS2mNnlJSqeEJFaGzqvriR4tv6ANNzaJnG cBPT00K8IViPYjUE6VfG3DuWkvJWqzpN8NrYGg3hW8vKI+q/kHWuZeZi4+H23zX9Oue5 1f2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MG/t8mLx+G/oCAVIEqZOEFEwg2tIOEYYb7WfKe+Q+ul7gXDGp ms7JSleHJDEnvibZ+OMlv0otOgFiZdzX6cyCwvkf3W0R X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAIdm1O4LK4UVqX52psBELAo7Yz/DawCCHA9tBzCic5TTFvSwJvKyBVsn99hqCEkbbu5ea5MWtzjcvbueWLd0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c145:b0:142:50c3:c2a with SMTP id 5-20020a170902c14500b0014250c30c2amr76120378plj.32.1637329278775; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 05:41:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 14:41:18 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83bl2gwpq8.fsf@gnu.org> X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e; envelope-from=stefankangas@gmail.com; helo=mail-pl1-x62e.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:279760 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Could it be that you are using a suboptimal font? In my experience, >> finding a really good one makes a big difference. > > If finding such good fonts is a significant effort, we could have > users complain about ugly display because they didn't invest that > effort. This stuff should work OOTB as much as possible, or else we > should make it opt-in. That's a solid point, and definitely something worth thinking about. The effort involved is a) picking a suitable candidate, b) installing it if it's not already, and c) customizing Emacs to use it. Step a) can take however much time you want to, I suppose. Some people enjoy searching for fonts more than others. In my experience from Debian, step b) can be slightly tedious given that distributions might package fonts in various bundles such that the font name you find online doesn't necessarily correspond 1:1 with the name of the package. YMMV. Step c) is a bit fiddly, but not too bad (you need to type the name of the font manually, as opposed to just selecting it from a list, so you better get the spelling right). If we want to simplify this, these are the first ideas that come to mind: - We could provide a curated list of variable-width fonts to prefer, where available. Perhaps depending on system. - We could somehow encourage distributions to add this or that font as an optional dependency ("recommends", as Debian/apt would call it), and then use it if available. - If we want to recommend one or more particular `variable-pitch' font, it would make sense to recommend also one or more `fixed-pitch' fonts that would go well with it. Fonts generally harmonize better or worse with each other, also on a technical level (a font with thick glyphs might look rather bad next to one with very thin glyphs, for example).