The Bloomberg Terminal has evolved from an 80x25 hardware terminal where the application layout was done remotely in our data centers. (Note, users and insiders refer to these as "functions" instead of "apps", but I'll use "app" throughout as it's likely more familiar to the HN audience).
When we ported it to a Win32/GDI program, the client was kept intentionally "dumb" and so resizing the window led to distorted text rendering. This was necessary to keep the 80x25 cells aligned, as the layout was meaningful.
Fast forward to the 2010s and we started offering our app developers a way to implement "more content" when resizing rather than just stretching it. Note also that there are plenty of "form"-style or "calculator"-style apps where there is no more content to show; in those cases resizing just adds more negative space around the UI. Now we are in the 2020s, and most of the apps have adapted to either "more content" or "more negative space" as needed.
There are ~1000 apps on the terminal and they all have their own roadmaps and business deliverables, so UI upkeep cannot always be a priority.
Opinions my own, etc.
EDIT: the above information is still correct, even if the <img> tag in the OP article is distorted.
> Since monospace fonts are fixed width, wouldn't swapping out 1 monospace font for another monospace font (that's more readable) be seamless?
Not sure I exactly understand this suggestion - but if I do, wouldn't it require a different monospace font for each possible configuration of the window size?
The "normal" window size was set such that each character cell was 9x19 pixels; this makes the window 720x475 (ignoring window borders added by the OS). If the user resizes it to, e.g. 721x475, there is no specific font that can be added to substitute; instead that extra vertical line needs to be inserted somewhere.
What I mean is, there's plenty of monospace fonts that can fit within a 9x19 pixel grid.
And since the 9x19 size doesn't change, shouldn't you be able to substitute any 9x19 monospace font with another equally sized.
(The 9x19 grid doesn't change, which mean the UI wouldn't change, but you could use a monospace font that has more readable letter forms than what's currently in use)
Yes, we could. However we specially commissioned this font from Monotype (creator of many famous fonts). It's called Bloomberg Fixed Unicode (you can search around for samples/copies which I won't vouch for here).
I also won't comment on the aesthetics of this font, but the choice is intentional and part of the branding of the Terminal product.
When we ported it to a Win32/GDI program, the client was kept intentionally "dumb" and so resizing the window led to distorted text rendering. This was necessary to keep the 80x25 cells aligned, as the layout was meaningful.
Fast forward to the 2010s and we started offering our app developers a way to implement "more content" when resizing rather than just stretching it. Note also that there are plenty of "form"-style or "calculator"-style apps where there is no more content to show; in those cases resizing just adds more negative space around the UI. Now we are in the 2020s, and most of the apps have adapted to either "more content" or "more negative space" as needed.
There are ~1000 apps on the terminal and they all have their own roadmaps and business deliverables, so UI upkeep cannot always be a priority.
Opinions my own, etc.
EDIT: the above information is still correct, even if the <img> tag in the OP article is distorted.