I'm generally pretty supportive of new typefaces, but this one strikes me as... not very legible.
The x-height is so uncommonly high it makes it genuinely difficult to distinguish between uppercase/ascending and lowercase letters at a glance (e.g. 'U' vs 'u', or 'h' vs. 'n'), and similarly the descender is so tiny it makes it hard to distinguish certain letters at a glance (e.g. 'q' vs 'p'). The whole point of large-enough ascenders and descenders is to recognize the shapes of whole words before looking at their letters, which these dimensions destroy.
The extremely square aspect of rounded segments similarly makes them harder to distinguish from straight segments at a glance (e.g. 'U' vs 'O' are far more similar than you want for legibility).
Not to mention, italic cursive is particularly difficult to read. Handwritten-style cursive was never designed for legibility -- it was designed for speed in writing. Adopting it in a body-text typeface meant for reading adds work for the reader to decipher it.
I don't want to be so negative, but typeface design has certain principles that the creator is simply ignoring. They're not arbitrary or aesthetic, but rather are directly about functional legibility.
At the end of the day, this typeface goes out of its way to be surprisingly difficult to read. You can read it, but it simply takes more effort. Which is generally the last thing you want in a typeface for coding (or anything body text).
I used victor mono as primary font everywhere (vscode, idea, terminal) for very long time, and disagree with your opinion of its readability. It successfully replaced Fira Code to me. Anecdotal evidence, of course, but I want to counter the authoritative tone of your comment.
Although I’m using Iosevka now, Victor Mono was reliable work horse for me for very long time.
I found that font through coding font tournament style selector (codingfont.com).
I may miss some, but my history was
Courier New - Consolas - Dejavu Sans Mono - Anonymous Pro - Azeret Mono - Fira Code - Victor Mono - Iosevka - Iosevka Slab, and if I will decide to go back, Victor Mono is going to be first choice
Typeface designer here. Thanks for trying the font and having lots of thoughts about it.
I guess the point is that it wasn’t first and foremost designed to follow as many font design principles as possible. If that’s what’s important to you, pick a font that follows as many of these principles as possible. :D
In the end, I guess I don’t really care whether I use 157ms to parse a sentence instead of 158 - although to me, the font is absolutely super-legible.
It's a shame this is all you got from the response because I think what they said is actually a lot more interesting:
>Thanks for trying the font and having lots of thoughts. You're right that it doesn't follow all of the guidelines to maximize readability! There are other fonts that do that but mine does not. That's not what I'm interested in and it doesn't bother me - I find it to be perfectly readable.
I think an important part of maturing as a developer (and a human) is understanding that guidelines are always about maximizing certain qualities of something and that it's generally ok to choose not to focus on those things. Unless your customers are a captive population of some sort, generally we can all make whatever thing we want and let people who like it pick it up.
>I think what they said is actually a lot more interesting <...>
Your rewriting of the comment says exactly the same thing it did before. My assessment of it remains the same.
I think an important part of maturing as a developer (and a human) is realizing that it's better to say nothing at all than to write "it works for me, use something else if you don't like it" in response to criticism of work that you:
1. Publish online for public use;
2. Describe as "the best font for programming";
3. Set up a Patreon page to collect money for.
Note that the criticism was not addressed to the designer in the first place. The designer went out of their way to find and dismiss criticism with a non-informative "I guess I just don't care".
The critic explained why they strongly feel that e.g. curisve italics aren't a good feature for a programming font (moreso described as "the best" one). The designer added no context or insight into why they think differently other than "I don't care", which is, frankly, offputing.
It is also disingenuous to sum up the criticism as "does not follow all guidelines for readability". The criticism wasn't about following guidelines; it was about the font being hard to read.
Imagine a teacher telling a student their handwriting isn't legible, and the student responding with "I guess I don't care, following all the guidelines wasn't the goal in producing this work, and I myself can read this perfectly fine". We are not that far from this scenario here.
> realizing that it's better to say nothing at all than to write "it works for me, use something else if you don't like it"
It seems really important to clarify what you will and won't do in your projects. Setting aside the tone of the response - are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement? Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.
>Imagine a teacher telling a student their handwriting isn't legible, and the student responding with "I guess I don't care, following all the guidelines wasn't the goal in producing this work, and I myself can read this perfectly fine".
I think this a great example to expand on because...it obviously depends! If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero. The font just needs to transmit the content and if it fails at that it's no good. But then you did not "[follow] all the guidelines" in producing the work because legibility was required.
On the other hand, unless the student is lying, then whatever they are producing text for doesn't need to be legible. They are free to make whatever text best serves their goals. Getting the feedback that it's not legible is important - but if legibility isn't a requirement then it's up to the author to decide how to use that note.
For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one." We are all free (or not) to use this font. It is not being used to make signage or publish books (and if it was it would be the responsibility of the authors of those works). The author has no responsibility to live up to any particular guidelines because they're doing what they please (and presenting it as such). People are allowed to think anything is "best" for anything! I might think Comic Sans is the best font for programming (though I imagine few people would agree).
I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."
>It seems really important to clarify what you will and won't do in your projects.
Sure, but that's not what the designer did. Their comment didn't mention one specific change that they are (or aren't) going to implement.
"Nah, everything's fine, works for me" doesn't clarify anything about the font - just about the designer.
>Setting aside the tone of the response
Aside from the main issue I have with the communication, ....
>- are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement?
No.
What I say is that a response to constructive, grounded criticism should be reciprocal. If you're already making an effort to object to grounded criticism, make a grounded objection.
The objection the deisgner made was little more than "works for me, like it or leave it". There is zero value in that.
>Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.
Arugably, it is useful to know that the caretaker of the project is not giving any consideration to feedback. But that's not something I can commend.
"This font isn't going to follow all readability guidelines" doesn't actually communicate any information. You can't say what's on the roadmap for the font, other than it will be whatever the designer likes.
> For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one."
We are. The github page for that font is written entirely in that font.
I feel it's disengenous to say that you can't criticize a font because the only person that is "forced" to see it is the person that picks it for use, and otherwise, it's the responsibility of that person.
By that logic, all fonts are above critcism!
>If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero
The work (the font and its description, written in that font) has been presented to us for grading, and it was graded accordingly.
>I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."
According to [1], the property of being hard to read makes text illegible.
The point at which the text becomes illegible rather than simply "taking more effort to read" is subjective, I am not going to die on that hill.
What's wrong with that? A person isn't obligated to have an open source maintainer care about their opinions on where their project should go, even if it can be helpful for them to consider objections. Especially when the opinions are simply, "Your entire set of principles are wrong, and this is aggressively bad."
Going out of one's way to tell to a person that wasn't talking to you in the first place to say that you don't care about what they said.
>Especially when the opinions are simply, "Your entire set of principles are wrong, and this is aggressively bad."
You may notice that the criticism is written in several well-structured and reasoned paragraphs, and not that one line. Perhaps your summary doesn't reflect what was said.
The roman style is pretty legible, yes, and I . The italic, though? It's not a 157ms vs 158ms difference, I legitimately struggle reading it at all, which is a shame because I really like the roman style.
Well, then I guess you can just not use the italic style, or just substitute it for the oblique alternative, or choose not to use slanted style at all, maybe…?
Hey, thanks for designing it. Right now I'm using Iosevka but I loved Victor Mono, was my main terminal typeface for a long time, and I loved the high x-height which enhanced readability even at low sizes.
Even today it's one of my recommendations for anyone looking for a coding/monospace font.
I'm surprised you as a typeface designer are not interested in what end-users(aren't they the customers?) are saying about the font. This means, assuming good intent, that's not where the money is coming from.
Can someone shed some light on who pays typeface designers and what are the incentives like?
I think he meant he's the designer of _this_ typeface. Not in general. And for _this_ typeface as a labour of love why shouldn't they disregard user feedback when they made it for their own purposes.
Hey that's the beautiful thing about being human, in my opinion :) we all prefer different things and that is OK! Otherwise, we wouldn't need menus at any restaurant since everyone would just get the same "food".
Fwiw I like the font and I'm looking forward to trying it out!
Well you made it explicitly for programming purposes.
I am not a poll house or a public opinion evaluator. But handwritten cursive and programming I wouldn't put in a same sentence.
The ligatures and the height you choose really don't go well with a lot of popular programming languages.
I'm not sure what aspect of programming do you believe is "inhumane" so you have desire to introduce "humanity" through design choice.
Some others have liked it, others have critized features of it, like the italics and the ligatures. (Features one can easily disable in most sane editors, I might add).
I’ve been using it daily ever since I made it, and I like to believe it makes me effective and happy.
No one should obviously pick a font which is hard to read for them of slows them down. This font doesn’t do that for me personally. If it does that for you, yes, you should probably pick a font where legibility has been the sole focus. (Dyslexia fonts for programming, maybe?)
What I like about it is that it makes more use of the vertical space. In programming, almost everything is lowercase or titlecase (snake/camel are the same), so I prefer to have the higher x-height. It's the most legible typeface for me, and I've tried many
>Heh well actually I made the font for my own use.
Perhaps you should change the banner on the github page to reflect that. Currently, it says "the best programming font"; whereas your comment implies it is merely "the best font for rubjo".
Same goes for your Patreon page. When you take other people's money, you say:
>It means a lot to me that you choose to support me this way. With your contribution, I can cover some of the costs for the software and the time used designing the font. Issues / feature requests you might have will be prioritised when possible.
Obviously, it should say (quoting your comments here):
>Thanks for trying the font. In the end, I guess I don't really care. Issues / feature requests you might have... heh well actually I made the font for my own use. :D You should probably pick a font where legibility has been the sole focus.
>To me, the font is absolutely super-legible. If this font is hard to read for you or slows you down, yes, you should probably pick Dyslexia fonts.
Finally, saying that people who don't find your font legible should probably use fonts specifically designed for people with Dyslexia is just... ugh.
Especially coming from someone who writes phrases like these:
- font which is hard to read for them of slows them down
- others have critized features of it
In the end, it's not about the font. It's about how you respond to people who "critize" your work.
And "works for me, have you considered you're dyslexic?" is not a great response. You can do better, and I hope you will.
You might be firing yourself up a little too much over an opinionated font which is being offered for free. The web site banner and slogans are ehh lets say intentionally and super-obviously grand, if you get what I mean. (?)
I shared it so anyone else who likes it also can use it. It works really well for me. A few others have told me the same. That’s more than enough for me. It’s great that you have found something else that works for you. Peace, man! :)
>You might be firing yourself up a little too much
Why, I'm not "firing myself up" at all. To the contrary, it's rather calming to talk about fonts rather than wars.
> The web site banner and slogans are ehh lets say intentionally and super-obviously grand, if you get what I mean. (?)
So is your attitude towards feedback, if you get what I mean. (?)
>I shared it so anyone else who likes it also can use it. It works really well for me. A few others have told me the same. That’s more than enough for me.
The fact that you have donation links, a Patreon page, and a merch store[1] indicates otherwise.
Clearly, "a few people telling you it works for them" wasn't enough; you'd also like people to give you money and buy your merch so that you could make a living doing this.
From your Patreon:
>If everyone who visited the font home page and downloaded the font had contributed like you do, I could have developed Victor Mono and other fonts as a full-time job.
So... yeah.
>It’s great that you have found something else that works for you
I've been programming 20 years and I use one of these combined sans/cursive font setups. I like less legibility for certain parts of the code - like keywords/decorators that I can recognize instantly but want to skip reading/parsing when I want, for instance, to just read function names in collapsed code. I typically set stuff like this to a color closer to the BG too.
Yeah, this point exactly - intentionally altering or even subduing some parts of the code using color or style to actually recognize blocks of code more quickly. Maybe everything being at 110% legibility all the time makes the whole more time-consuming to scan sometimes. Maybe.
Verdana also has a high x-height, in fact for legibility, many road sign fonts have a high x-height as well. This font does have an unusually high x-height, but IMO its very well done. Capitals and lowercase are very distinct.
The cursive thing isn't my cup of tea, but there are oblique versions too.
Overall I think this font has a lot of character. Kudos to the designer, nice work!
To add to that, my expectation of fonts is that the italic version follows the same style as the non-italic version (same goes for bold).
Having a typewriter-like font whose italics version looks like handwritten cursive breaks this expectation. If it was meant for code comments, the solution is to configure the IDE to use a different font and not to hack the format.
Victor Mono is two fonts in a trenchcoat for no good reason.
I find the italic cursive very pleasing and not hard to read at all. It looks exactly like the worksheets I had in elementary school when learning how to write. My handwriting was never that neat but many people in my class had exactly this 'font' when writing. That was a long time ago...
I daily Inconsolata (well, technically the ligaturized version). I find it extremely legible, and most importantly, it's easy on the eyes. A lot of programming fonts tend to be too angular for my tastes (I've tried SF Mono and plenty others, and settled on Inconsolata.)
Really, programming fonts are down to taste -- there's not objectively a best one; for an example of that, look in this thread: some people like Victor Mono, whilst others dislike it, and that's fine!
Being supportive of new typefaces doesn't mean you have to like everything you see?
Personally, I'm biased because I prefer the "good old" typewriter-style monospace fonts with serifs, which already eliminates around 90% of "programming fonts". My current favorite (not only for Go) is Go Mono (https://go.dev/blog/go-fonts).
I don't think the 3-4 well-presented arguments that the OP is making would be considered an 'essay'. Do you have any counter-arguments or you just feel offended by their comment?
Sorry, ligatures are not for me. I don't get it. Why would you ever want symbols to collapse like that in a functional monospace font? Just looks like a bunch of funky unicode characters peppered throughout my source. And my caret can travel _inside_ one of these special marks? No thanks.
I love ligatures, solely because I think they look pretty on my own screen. I especially like that our ASCII art arrows like -> are now little arrow pictures.
Emacs’s ligatures.el handles this nicely: you configure which specific ligatures you want to enable on a per-font basis. Want only -> and only in Berkeley Mono? Only turn that one on.
When pairing with people who use them, I find it harder to read, which is ok as long as variable names differ enough but it makes it really hard to distinguish == vs ===, and => vs -> etc...
I sometimes feels there's now a race between typefacers to stuff as many ligatures as possible to the point that it's bordering in indecipherability and clownishness. There's definitely an audience for this though, else why would they do it.
Not OP, but that’s my conclusion. I also don’t like programming font ligatures, but I personally find it annoying when people who share my opinion feel the need to point it out in a discussion of fonts clearly designed for people who don’t share my opinion. It’s highly subjective and the prevalence of these ligatures has never been a huge burden for me, because fonts without them are rather prevalent as well, as are means to bypass them in my own use.
And you can use the font with ligatures disabled! Almost as if having ligatures was a preference that doesn’t influence those who don’t want them yet may convince someone who does to try out font X :)
I think you've missed something from those comments.
Scenario: You're looking at a screenshot of someone else's code (from documentation, blog post, video, etc...). You see a ligature you're not familiar with. Now you cannot follow the rest of the information.
Does anyone know where the use of cursive-style characters in monospace fonts originated from? (My guess would be that it came from something like Operator Mono from Hoefler & Co.)
I've always found the cursive to be a little jarring, since the cursive characters usually look so different from the normal ones, and switching between cursive and normal styles makes it slower for me to visually parse a section of code. I always thought that was an odd choice given that many folks seem to highly value legibility and immediate character recognition when they pick a monospace font.
They are usually used for comments which people also configure to be less visible. They are sort of there when you want but do not attract attention. I suppose they also make comments look like regular prose, rather than "code".
It was a bit of a "novelty" font for typewriters. Almost like the Comic Sans of its day. It wasn't meant to be used as italics, it was for typing a fun invitation or more "personal" letter or something like that.
I can't find any information on it specifically though, whether it was the first. It wouldn't surprise me if it were, however.
You can compare using their tool if you scroll down that page. I also use Jetbrains Mono. A cursory comparison seems like Jetbrains is clearer. Look at $, but also other characters.
Cool typeface, but pretty illegible to me (I realize this is very personal). I don't think my eyes could handle this for more than a few minutes. That's the thing about typefaces — there are typefaces that are far "prettier" and more interesting than the ones I use, but they don't scale in the sense that they just can't be used as your daily driver. Good typefaces for all day programming strike a balance between style, legibility and "plainness" that makes them suitable for staring at all day every day.
I'm curious, does anybody else change their terminal/editor font about once every two months only to immediately decide."no I don't like change" and go back to their standard? (In my case JetBrains Mono)
I'd don't know if it's that I genuinely prefer that font, or just that I've spent so long looking at it my brain can't handle anything else.
It's literally the only font that has this effect on my reading I've found, seems to be something with the letter shapes. It basically feels like putting on prescription glasses, suddenly all the text becomes ten times more legible.
Playing with the spacing of another font doesn't seem to have a similar effect.
Although I'm open to the fact that there's probably a whole spectrum of different processing disorders that fly under the banner of dyslexia, so mileage may definitely vary.
Just happened to me too, I've tried some I found at https://www.programmingfonts.org/. I again returned to using Hasklig - Source Code pro with Ligatures - in the editor.
Awesome font, but not for me. The kerning is just too small for a text editor for my eyes. I bet others would like it.
The side-by-side comparison tool with different fonts is AMAZING. Major props to the designer. Every font site should do that. I loved immediately comparing the font vs my current font _in browser_, without downloading any files.
Though ligatures when I first saw them looked really cool but trying them out I quickly realized how much I hated actually reading and writing code with them turned on. Cursive has also been an odd choice for monospace fonts to me, I don't like how they break the expected uniformity of the monospace text. Varying font weight, color and using italics has always been enough for me.
I personally removed the Italics, so that the Oblique style is used for comments (had to alter some preferences for that). The italics are hard to read when the size is small. But I'm loving the font face. Super clear.
Due to the garguantuan font size on the page, I couldn't resize the page down to my typical programming font size. It was larger than that even at 30% zoom level and that's the minimum on Firefox.
It's pointless to have a demo if I can't check how the font would look like on a desktop computer.
Edit: Oh, now I get it. It's upscaled the larger the browser window size is. I understand this from an adaptive design perspective but I don't think it's optimal in this case. It becomes huge if you sit with a 27" monitor, which is a rather normal monitor size for programming.
There were a lot of monospace font postings in the last week and they all had some novelty but this one is horrid and from a typographer standpoint - badly executed.
Been using this font for a while, but ultimately ended up switching back to Input Mono Condensed. It’s similar, but looks neater to me. And no cursive.
I've used Victor Mono in the past and cannot say I enjoy it because of the X-height but this is subjective of course. I am a big fan of HackGen Console NF which flies under the radar. https://github.com/yuru7/HackGen or brew install font-hackgen-nerd
I actually like Victor Mono. Ligatures, italics and cursive comments are my favorite features. It helps me to visually classify different sections of code, without being dependent on just colour of the text (I find current code themes already way too colourful!).
A typeface designed for programming should have _very_ visually distinct bracket and parentheses {([])} characters. Intel’s new typeface and the GitHub family that was just released both do this very well. I’d advise the Victor Mono author to take a look at how those fonts do it.
All these new typefaces ... I think it is time for a new keyboard design to make use of those cool Unicode codepages. I see so many symbols that would be great to have in new programming languages but somehow we're stuck with ASCII and I think keyboards are the culprit.
Julia has made symbol input manageable and lets you define infix operators for many of the Unicode symbols that make sense for that. [1] And JuliaMono was designed to support the symbols that Julia does. [2]
I generally do quite fine with my Compose Key configuration, though (even on Windows, where I use WinCompose). [3]
It's not as nice as Iosevka, but it's up there on my list of monospaced coding typefaces for graphical editors. (Terminals need chunky bitmap fonts, the Atari ST hi-res mono font being a particular favorite of mine.)
Beautiful website (mobile). Beautiful font. Although I must agree that it’s not as legible as Fira or Ubuntu in an editor, I would certainly consider this font for aesthetic purposes for presentation, etc. It looks fantastic on your site.
been using for longer now and I still love it the most. Might try Ghost from Vercel, or GHs latest font to compare, but every other mono font didn't come close to the italics and general style
Victor Mono is one of my top fonts, specially because I like to use tiny sizes + a bit condensed to get some extra columns. Iosevka becomes illegible under the same size, so despite being more condensed, Victor still wins for me.
The page uses too large font size for code examples. It is easy to look good at a large size. I advise to set page zoom to 70% or less before comparing font legibility.
I mean, why do we wear the clothes we do? Why not other clothes? Why do we choose the art we collect? Why do some people care about art, and some don't? Why do we follow the sports? Why do some people follow football while others care about cricket?
Different people care about different things. Why should we judge what people care about?
> I mean, why do we wear the clothes we do? Why not other clothes? Why do we choose the art we collect? Why do some people care about art, and some don't? Why do we follow the sports? Why do some people follow football while others care about cricket?
Different people care about different things. Why should we judge what people care about?
Because fonts have become fetishized, and in my opinion, it’s weird.
Monospace/proportional is orthogonal to roman/italic; that italic 'true' is still monospace. They do have an oblique variant instead of italic, though.
I have Booleans in italic (blasphemy!) :D and find it is immediately recognizeable that they are spelt correctly when the editor formats them that way. YMMV.
Lovely quality. I celebrate that. Ligatures are a deal breaker for me tho.
With centuries of use cases, we crafted an alphabet that abstracted phonemes, one per symbol, in a carefully isolated, unambiguous and successful way. Ligatures come and with a stroke of design creativity inject ambiguity and de-standardisation where those problems were previously carefully solved.
I dislike them too, but they can be disabled. This makes them ‘good’ for remote pair with something like upterm so two users that disagree on the subject can have it their way. Inappropriate usage is rampant making presentations & in-person pairing way more difficult/unclear (luckily userStyles can be used to prevent it in the browser). What we need is languages to stop clinging to US keyboards as a limiter where => doesn’t need to be misunderstood as ⇒ or ≥.
Ligatures overcome the typographic limitations we've had since ASCII came along. For example -> became a convention because we didn't have a way to write → easily. Now we do.
…for you. Be careful when you state personal opinion as fact. I’m not claiming that they’re universally good, just that I like them (and so do lots of other people). Your claims are far from universal.
But notice is not an opinion that most fonts you see everywhere are not using ligatures. They are a subset which is the opposite of being universally adopted as norm. Which is the point I'm raising: The norm expects you to unambiguously interpret certain symbols and ligatures dilutes that normal convenience to read symbols unambiguously. Your brain acquired a taste to adjust the parsing of these symbols, that taste isn't universal nor is it the norm.
I don't dislike this font visually but it needs a lot of work.
How I approach "reviewing" monospace fonts is whether I would immediately or eventually change them if they came as default. Monospace fonts that come with default KDE for instance are passable and I'll change them eventually.
If this font was default to anywhere I'd change it immediately.
Using an explicit "human style" for comments implies that the code belongs to the "machine"? Humans wrote everything. The italics font is useless for programming. If I compare it to any standard fonts in the box below on site I can notice A) higher glyphs B) cartoony comments. And that's it.
> I'm generally pretty supportive of new typefaces
I guess I am in the abstract, but... no, I guess I'm more "bewildered" by new typefaces. Especially mono fonts targetted at source code display.
I mean, this world just doesn't have elaborate requirements. And it was solved, like, dead-on-done-to-perfection with the open source release of Bitstream Vera two decades ago. I haven't wanted a new font since. Frankly I can barely tell the difference between most of them (not this one though -- yikes, that cursive thing is weird). I mean, why?
Why not spend your font design hours making something for general text that people might notice. Hackers are poor discriminators and frankly very well served already.
The x-height is so uncommonly high it makes it genuinely difficult to distinguish between uppercase/ascending and lowercase letters at a glance (e.g. 'U' vs 'u', or 'h' vs. 'n'), and similarly the descender is so tiny it makes it hard to distinguish certain letters at a glance (e.g. 'q' vs 'p'). The whole point of large-enough ascenders and descenders is to recognize the shapes of whole words before looking at their letters, which these dimensions destroy.
The extremely square aspect of rounded segments similarly makes them harder to distinguish from straight segments at a glance (e.g. 'U' vs 'O' are far more similar than you want for legibility).
Not to mention, italic cursive is particularly difficult to read. Handwritten-style cursive was never designed for legibility -- it was designed for speed in writing. Adopting it in a body-text typeface meant for reading adds work for the reader to decipher it.
I don't want to be so negative, but typeface design has certain principles that the creator is simply ignoring. They're not arbitrary or aesthetic, but rather are directly about functional legibility.
At the end of the day, this typeface goes out of its way to be surprisingly difficult to read. You can read it, but it simply takes more effort. Which is generally the last thing you want in a typeface for coding (or anything body text).