zlacker

>>gjvc+(OP)
super annoying web design from a graphic design company to show a typeface that purports its goal is to "get out of the way" so you can be productive, why not show some calm examples of text as in a terminal at a normal typesize? I had to zoom out to 60% just to tame it, and yet there was still blinking all over the place and nothing that approximated anything other than a phone screen.

does something about this typeface set it apart in a useful way from the zillion other free or default monospaced options? If anything it seemed a little awkward with the flourishes they added toward making it look fauxCR-able. (an artistic flourish I like as "zany graphic fun" but is it helpful for extended use?)

for the people who love it, I've no problem with enjoying flourishes, but it's calling itself serious. I'm serious and it's not taking me seriously.

>>fsckbo+2b
$75 license. I assume they want people to be wow'ed by the unrealistic zoom shots, and pay money before realizing that it's little different from JetBrains Mono or Roboto Mono in a real-world editor or terminal.

>>SteveP+ac
Downvote me for your life here, I don’t care.

This sort of comment is why I have a love/hate relationship with HN. Love, because yesterday I learned some amazing stuff that I told my partner about in bed.

Hate, because of the assumptions that so many people are so quick to jump to. You know nothing about this guy’s motivations. (His name’s Neil. I’ve spoken to him. He seems like a really solid dude. He probably has thicker skin than me.)

So you come in here and you imply that this thing is essentially a scam to rob you of $75. You imply that Neil is a scammer, trying to rob you of $75.

It’s really shitty and I wish people wouldn’t do it.

Edit: I’m not saying “don’t criticise the site”. If you don’t like the site, say so. But don’t criticise the motivations about which you know literally nothing.

>>jen729+ji
Very much agree. What's wrong with computer people that they won't spend money on tools?! Especially since they are made by people in their own industry. Machinists (aka metalworkers) wouldn't sneer at other machinists and refuse to purchase their tools because someone else in their own industry dared to charge someone money for it.

But the very same people will happily work for an advertising company under the guise of being a programmer and take a wage and bonus. Right on.

>>gjvc+sB
I agree with you on the general principle. That said, software is kind of an odd duck in that huge amounts of valuable code are just given away for free to whomever wants it. How much would you pay for a shell? A better ls command? A mailserver? All of those require considerable effort to create, and yet people have made wonderful implementations of each of those and said here ya go, have it, enjoy!

I can understand the skepticism against a paid font. There are some pretty grand ones available for free to anyone who'd like to use them. In this case, it was worth the premium to me to pay anyway. I don't think someone's automatically a cheapskate for thinking I'm nuts to buy a license.

>>kstrau+nF
> I can understand the skepticism against a paid font.

Me too! But that's not what upset me. What upset me was the assumption of deceit in the parent post.

It's like drive-by shootings here sometimes; people see a thing, they don't like it, and they assume that the person creating it therefore has bad motives. I've been on the receiving end, directly, and it stinks. It makes this place worse.