23 points | by vinhnx 5 days ago ago
6 comments
Why does the 'l' look different in the title image and in the example images?
I actually like the one in the title image more, because it's less likely to be confused for a 1.
[EDIT:] Also the kerning of l and i in 'lines' looks a bit off …
Repost, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45849342.
Strangely, I submitted this a week ago, even before the linked HN you mentioned. Now it turns to the front page, maybe the HN algo bumps it.
The flat shape of the "r" and the lack of curvature on the "p" where it touches the stem would drive me mad, but YMMV.
Might be nice if the ligature of != was ≠
Font generally looks nice, but I really hate the trend of overly-curly curly braces.
(Also, I'm judging the C code. No check on the fopen()? fclose() on a possibly invalid FILE *? No return from int main()? "FILE *f"?!?!)
Why does the 'l' look different in the title image and in the example images?
I actually like the one in the title image more, because it's less likely to be confused for a 1.
[EDIT:] Also the kerning of l and i in 'lines' looks a bit off …
Repost, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45849342.
Strangely, I submitted this a week ago, even before the linked HN you mentioned. Now it turns to the front page, maybe the HN algo bumps it.
The flat shape of the "r" and the lack of curvature on the "p" where it touches the stem would drive me mad, but YMMV.
Might be nice if the ligature of != was ≠
Font generally looks nice, but I really hate the trend of overly-curly curly braces.
(Also, I'm judging the C code. No check on the fopen()? fclose() on a possibly invalid FILE *? No return from int main()? "FILE *f"?!?!)