Following up on Source Sans The public reception of the release of last month was very encouraging. My colleague, Ken Lunde, that this was not Adobe’s first open source font as has been available for some time now. But I stand by my claim that it is Adobe’s first open source type family. The blog post announcing the family’s release has been our most popular in the history of Typblography and the news was picked up by major tech media outlets such as, &c. As of today, the fonts have been downloaded over 68,250 times. One particularly surprising aspect of Source Sans’s release was the amount of interest generated by the teaser graphic of the monospaced version. It seemed that this generated about as much buzz as the fonts that we released., the open source code editor created by Adobe, has just recently implemented the regular weight of Source Code into their project.

Free shipping and returns on all orders Mac source code pro. Offering more than 100 shades of professional quality makeup must-haves for All Ages, All Races, All Sexes. And with source compatibility in Swift 4, Xcode 9 uses the same. The source code editor has. And debug your apps — without a USB cord plugged into your Mac.

Likewise, the font will be integrated into, which was announced this morning at our in San Francisco. The complete family of six weights will also be available as part of our new service, which was this morning. Why monospace? As a font developer, I spend a good chunk of each day coding in a text editor and reading output messages from a terminal window, so I can appreciate the importance of a good. Of course there is no technical limitation to using monospaced fonts when coding, but it is a very useful convention.

Source Code Movie Wiki

When the Brackets team reached out to us on the Adobe type team, asking if we could develop a coding font for their open source application, we thought it made sense to adapt Source Sans, which I was working on at the time. Personally, I felt that I could use this opportunity to create a coding font that I would want to use myself. Given the existing family name, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to name the monospaced variant designed for coding applications Source Code. Adapting the design To my eye, many existing monospaced font suffer from one of three problems.

The first problem that I often notice is that, many monospaced fonts force lowercase letters with a very large x-height into a single width, resulting in overly condensed letter forms which result in words and text with a monotonous rhythm, which quickly becomes tedious for human eyes to process. The second problem is somewhat the opposite of the first: many monospaced fonts have lowercase letters that leave too much space in between letters, causing words and strings to not hold together.

Lastly, there is a category of monospaced fonts whose details I find to be too fussy to really work well in coding applications where a programmer doesn’t want to be distracted by such things. In designing Source Code, I tried my best to avoid these common design flaws. I had already put significant thought in how to differentiate similarly-structured characters in Source Sans, so many of its design features translated well in adapting the design to a monospaced version.

Modifying the uppercase letters was mostly a simple task of condensing the glyph shapes to fit within the standard monowidth of 60% of the em square. Only the M and the W needed to be more heavily modified. I also swapped out the simple, single-stroke uppercase I with a serifed version to better fill out the advance width.

Some potentially confusable characters In adapting the lowercase letter shapes, I wanted to keep the more elegant vertical proportions of Source Sans. Keeping the moderate x-height of the parent family allowed me to retain the salient features of each letter so that each character shape can be readily deciphered. In particular the greater difference in letter heights between upper and lowercase makes it much simpler to differentiate lowercase o from uppercase O. The challenge in adapting the lowercase letters to monospaced versions is to extend them enough so that words and strings hold together, while preventing them from becoming so wide that they appear too much of a caricature. Overall, I like this one a lot. It is a lot like DejaVu Sans Mono, with some subtle differences. On the plus side, the tails on the Q, comma, and semicolon are more pronounced, which makes it easier to tell these from O, period, and colon.

The overall spacing seems better. On the minus side, there isn’t much separation in!, which could cause it to be mistaken for 1 or l.

In italics, the is slanted, where it is not in DejaVu. This could cause it to be mistaken for /. I’m neutral about the numbers being a little shorter than the capital letters.

Regardless, I’ll be running this for a while as it appears to be very nicely done. How good is the support for control character symbols (f.ex, “space”, “newline”, “tab”,). Those are a very nice to have feature, if you want to – for example – visualise trailing spaces or tabs in the editor. Also, is there a table of the implemented glyphs available? I tend to spend a lot of time on the console, so box-drawing characters are quite important to me too. Currently I am stuck with the font “Anonymous Pro” as it is the only programming font I found so far which has good support of box-drawing characters (f.

Ex.: ├─), and which also has support for the aforementioned symbols (f. A “space”: ␣) Are there plans to expand on this in case these symbols are not yet implemented? I personally don’t have.any. experience in font development or I would give it a shot myself 😦 Reference:.

“Splat” is programmer-speak for “asterisk” (U+002A). Among other things, it’s commonly used to represent multiplication. And, while some fonts (Menlo, for one) relocate the asterisk to the same height as the plus and minus, there is actually a separate Unicode code point (U+2217) for the “math asterisk”. So, the asterisk is in the correct location, even though some programmers apparently prefer that the math asterisk glyph be used for the asterisk character. Making a variant “lowered” glyph for the asterisk would be a nice touch, I suppose, for those who prefer it. Paul – Popped them open in FontLab Studio 5 – I must say Nice Job – first coding font I’ve even seen with ligatures, fractions, subscripts, and superscripts!

They are even hinted for small point sizes – nice. Being an old-school PostScript print person, could you add, in the documentation, the PostScript names? Yea, I can pull them out – but many others may run into problems. Publishing a set of old-school.PFA,.PFB,.AFM,.INF,.PFM files would be a nice touch. The.PFAs more than anything (printer resident fonts).

Again, nice job and thanks for the contribution. I really like this font, and I’m finding it generally useful at larger point sizes (11+). However, I’m seeing some antialiasing weirdness with some glyphs at smaller point sizes, primarily with dark text on a light background. Hopefully, this screenshot is useful: The three fonts, top to bottom, are Source Code Pro, Deja Vu Sans, and Menlo, all at 10pt. If you magnify the image a bit, note that the equals and plus signs are more grey than black for Source Code Pro. Also note that the 8 and 0 are a little more difficult to distinguish than the other two This antialiasing problem goes away with larger point sizes; even 10.5 pt is large enough to clear everything up. The problem is that I typically work at 9 or 10 pt.

I can turn off antialiasing completely, but the results are hideous. Well, my favorite font remains Bitstream Vera Sans Mono Bold at 9pt under Windows. Oddly, however, that font doesn’t look as good at different sizes, or when it isn’t bold, or under Linux (where the characters seem less sharp, bold looks too bold and regular too light). Source Code Pro’s characters look pretty good, the semibold version has the right amount of weight, but IMO the characters are spaced too far apart and when I choose the semibold variant then turn on Bold, it doesn’t get any bolder. Guess it beats Courier New, though. Now can anyone recommend a proportional font that looks good for code? Maybe something almost-fixed-width, so that the ‘.’s and ‘,’s and ‘i’s and spaces stand out more, but that still saves some horizontal space compared to a fixed-width font.

I have now compared Source Code Pro against Inconsolata, not just side-by-side but pixel-on-pixel. My first comment is that the asterisk being higher than normal for a code font turns out to be OK. It’s higher and smaller, but not too much so. (I have to admit astonishment at finding someone designing a code font and not noticing that the asterisk in well-liked code fonts is lower than is normal when used as a superscript in text. I am also astonished at one’s not knowing that hackers often call the asterisk “splat” as well as “star” when reciting code aloud. Is “bang” for the exclamation mark also unfamiliar?) Test setup: I set up my Gnome2/Mate desktop with Inconsolata as the “system monospace font”, with RGBA anti-aliasing and full hinting, using libfreetype 2.4.9.

(I can check under libotf 0.9.11 on emacs23 if that would be helpful; I notice that emacs renderings are sometimes better than under programs that use libfreetype.) Then, I opened some Gnome-terminal windows displaying various source code in C, Sh, and Make. I brought up the terminal’s “profile preferences” box, unchecked “use the system fixed width font” and chose Source Code Pro. Checking and un-checking the aforementioned box causes all the terminal windows to re-render in the chosen face, almost instantaneously, allowing me to flip back and forth several times per second. What I noticed first was that the point sizes are not commensurate. I.e., I had to use different point sizes to get the same-size glyphs, and yet others to get the same line heights.

(This is a not unfamiliar experience.) For each point size in one font I found a matching size in the other, although the mapping differed depending on whether I was matching leading or glyphs. The character widths of SCP matched Inconsolata precisely, making comparisons easy. A good starting point is IC Medium 12 vs. SCP Regular 10, or 11 vs. By choosing point sizes with identical metrics between the two fonts, I was able to see how the faces compared pixelwise. I found that, overall, SCP glyphs are individually more compact than IC’s, leaving more whitespace around them.

The tighter curves at small point sizes are necessarily less smoothly curved, so IC’s p’s and q’s look better- rounded. Next, I noticed that SCP glyphs are more top-heavy, with substantially less presence on the baseline, mainly a consequence of the designs of the “l” and “i”.

SCP and IC made opposite choices for baseline serifs on “l” and “1”: SCP has it on the “1”, IC on the “l”, with a lighter “1”. SCP would benefit from matching that choice, as serifs on numerals are not nearly so perceptually helpful as on letters. With a serif on “l”, the “i” would want one too, and then its top serif would not need to be oddly wide.

I found Source Code Pro an excellent first effort. While it has a fair distance to go to compete with Inconsolata, it’s already much better than most monospace fonts that came before.

Taking the time to do this comparison motivated me to do much the same with Droid Sans Mono and Deja Vu Mono. The first thing I notice is that SCP is much closer to Inconsolata than to these others.

Install Source Code Pro

The second is that choosing face point sizes so that the glyphs’ size matches, I get a different impression than when I compared them before. Both the Droid and Deja Vu fonts are quite a bit heavier than either SCP or Inconsolata. They leave less white space between lines and between glyphs, offering greater vertical density. They actually stand up rather better than I remember from less-precise trials. It’s great to see a programming-specific font come out once in a (long) while. Some feedback: – As with most fonts, the underscore is dropped down from the character base-lines.

Not since the age of line printers where underbars were actually used to underline has there been a case for it. It’s now mostly used as a word separator and having it be at char baseline works better. – The “” glyphs have blunt points. This makes them look fuzzy at smaller sizes. The same is true of “^”. – I find no use for the grave (`) glyph. Why not make it look like a back-quote and suddenly all those error messages (and LaTeX docs) start looking great?

– The asterisk is placed a bit too high for programming languages, none which which uses it as a superscript as is done in typography. IOW, having.= line up would be great. Thanks for making this available to the programming community.

In the context of programming Users typically want to see as much code as possible at a time, as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, since this font does not work at small font sizes, and (due to the leading allowance for the Black weight) it lacks efficiency in its use of vertical space (a premium on landscape monitors), it doesn’t fulfill any of the requirements I’d associate with a font targeted at developers. Perhaps a better avenue for publicizing this font would be “Adobe Sans” something, as “Source Code Pro” is somewhat misleading?

First of all, thanks for the nice font – I’ve been using it for some days now and I’m getting used to it and like it a lot! My problem is, that within certain IDEs, the font doesn’t seem to be registered as a bold version. So whenever I set syntax-highlighting to bold, I get a substitute font instead. If I can select the font type like in Eclipse, everything works fine, but if I only have a checkbox saying “bold”, the wrong font is chosen. Is there any solution for this problem, e.g. Can I register a certain facon of the font as being “bold”? Thanks a lot for your help!

Greez Mimi. Fantastic steps taken by Adobe. One thought on the glyph sets — Adobe Latin 4 covers a humongous number of languages. And that’s super, because most code editors I’ve seen restrict you to a single font (or family). In that regard, Source Code Pro is a champ compared to most monospaced fonts.

But one reason I’m working in a code editor using a code font is to edit the source XML files for dictionaries — and the pronunciation segment typically requires glyphs from IPA Extensions. Making a Source Code Pro for Greek or for Cyrillic or for the languages in Adobe Latin 5 would extend the font to a new language community.

284 Commits

But including IPA Extensions would enable users from all the 61 languages in AL4 to make dictionaries, a way larger benefit than any other addition you might make, IMO. Thanks again.

This is a fantastic font. Thank you for donating the result of what was surely a lot of hard work!

Install Source Code Pro Mac

I think this font has narrowly beat out Consolas as my favorite monospace font. I enjoy how clean and open it feels.

I may not be able to get as much text on the screen at once but I think it’s a tradeoff my eyes will thank me for. I’ve found that it renders well on Windows, Mac, and Linux machines – many other fonts I tested do not fare so well. Being a programmer by profession, I’ll be looking at this font for countless hours over the next N years. Keep up the great work!