[devit]

Seems really bad to me.

There's a lot of distracting glitches like the K and Q having small gaps where strokes come together, and even glyphs like the N, M, Y and Z have weird little gaps at the joints, the F and B have a bizarre overhang at the upper horizontal stroke, the 1 and 6 have a weird cut in their strokes.

There are lots of weird confusing choices like the parenthesis being a round rect instead of a bow shape, the @ having a "complex a" inside, the 3 and 5 using a "cute" diagonal layout instead of the normal "rounded-and-rect layout".

Seems horrible for something that should be as simple as possible. The default system UI fonts like DejaVu Sans, Segoe UI, Roboto, etc. are far better.

[nottheengineer]

It seems to me that those choices are made with low DPI in mind. Those cuts probably make sure that letters don't become blurry.

I think I'll try this one on my 1080p monitor for a day and see how it goes.

[mdekkers]

Have to agree. There is a lot of wild stuff going on that is visually tiring and hampers readability

[cormullion]

I think these “ink traps” might be effective on low resolution displays. But yes, those parentheses indicate it’s not a coding font.

[Tao3300]

Yeah, there's a visual example here of how it helps the 'e' stay legible at low res:

https://intactile.com/projets/ameliorer-la-lisibilite-et-la-...

Without that "pixel trap" (?) the intersection (there's probably a fancy typographic term for this) would look too bulky.