[bmpafa]

From the OP's section titled "Why?" :

> When it comes to programming fonts, I prefer something strict, readable and relatively condensed for the code proper, complemented with a more informal, flowing and human style for things like comments and reserved keywords.

[bmpafa]

Also from FAQ :

> A programming font with cursive italics and ligatures is the worst idea in the world. This is absolutely horrible. BTW, I am really angry.

> [Answer:] Not really a question, but anyway: People actually like different things. And it's OK. It's OK if someone else prefers a different font for code than you do. We don't have to use the same one. ️

(though obv. parent post is not hostile like this Q)

[Koshkin]

> hostile

You probably have never heard a cursing Italian.

[detaro]

Shouldn't it be called "A sophisticated programming font" then? :D

[hprotagonist]

only if it is also "for humans".

[detaro]

Seems like the submission title was changed in the meantime?

When I made the comment it was "The sophisticated programming font".

[Semiapies]

Which only moves the question back a step. Why, exactly, make reserved words, comments, tag attributes, etc., explicitly less readable than the rest of the painfully wispy text?

I find this font terrible on a readability basis to start with. The italics just double down on the hatred of eyes. I get a designer wanting to imitate a lot of currently popular san serif fonts (though not why they would make the font so skinny and less readable than those fonts), but coding fonts are meant to be comfortable and readable, not pretty.

[nkrisc]

Considering the author of this font pretty much made it for their own use, the answer to your question becomes: because that's their personal preference. No one needs to justify what font they prefer.

Then they decided to be nice and share it with the world for free.

[Semiapies]

Thank goodness the idea that something is free must automatically shut down any criticism hasn't taken over. We wouldn't have anything good.

[nkrisc]

Not sure how you drew that conclusion. But asking "why <subjective aesthetic preference>?" is not going to get you anywhere. Someone made a font for their own use because they personally enjoy. They then shared it for free with anyone else who might also enjoy it. There are certain color combinations I prefer for text and background that other people probably hate. I couldn't tell you why I like them, though.

Readability can be generalized (tiny text is almost universally difficult to read) but it's also very much a personal thing in other ways. You can criticize one's preference all you want but it hardly seems productive. I get a lot of flak for preferring green apples to red apples, but no amount of convincing will change my mind.

>Which only moves the question back a step. Why, exactly, make reserved words, comments, tag attributes, etc., explicitly less readable than the rest of the painfully wispy text?

I have no insight into the author's mind, but I can only assume the answer is, "because they prefer it that way." Why else would they have taken the time to do so if it's for personal use?

[xwdv]

Agreed, no one should be above criticism, even if free.