Commit Mono – Neutral programming typeface
commitmono.com
commitmono.com
Thank you for this memorandum, and especially for "no confusing ligatures".
The craziest thing I’ve seen was a single-width “fi” ligature. The only point of this ligature in proportional fonts is to prevent the dot on the ‘i’ from overlapping with the hook of the ‘f’, and that by definition can’t happen in monospace! But you madmen decided to create a single “fi” glyph, like it was a letter of its own. Imagine that on a typewriter.
Not necessarily. Unicode has a dedicated property called East Asian Width [1] which effectively affects the terminal rendering, and "Ambiguous" characters like arrows can be configured as full-width (because CJK users expect that). Even when the configuration itself doesn't exist, the font metric may be used to infer the glyph width in this case.
Personally I've been using a lot of Cascadia Code lately. Big fan.
For instance, the "I" key doesn't work (I assume you are using keyCodes, not strings, for characters). That is, it I press "C" (in Dvorak), I get italics on page 2. If I press "I" (in Dvorak), I don't. (I tested on two browsers to confirm.)
Nice font, BTW. I also like the site.
They do work on most EU layouts though, where eg. "-" is placed left of Right Shift (on US QWERTY it is right of "0"), which likely indicates the author made this using some EU keymap...
As a guess, this is using deprecated keycodes [1] instead of just characters.
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/KeyboardEve...
Ignore the haters. The website is lots of fun.
From this paragraph it sounds like they're using ligatures, which are rules of "when this character sequence appears, use this glyph instead."
But A) I'm no OTF expert, and B) I haven't dissected the font files.
I then opened it on desktop, tried to scroll and realised that it uses WASD keys which are all over my keyboard. The scroll wheel on my mouse/trackpad/etc don't work. As a user of a non-QWERTY layout this sucks.
Then I tried to use the text zoom and while it documents this as being controlled by + and -, it's actually controlled by _ and /. This suggests careless handling of input.
Why does this matter? I think a very important thing for typefaces is accessibility and coverage of edge-cases in language and usage. Covering characters that are used in different languages (even just punctuation that isn't common in English), ensuring readability for those without perfect vision, and so on, all require care and attention to a wide range of concerns.
This website doesn't instil confidence that the designers of the typeface have taken this approach, and in fact the interaction model (which I actually really like) gives the impression of style over substance.
It's a stupid website. It took more work to make it shittier to use. It's a loss for the author AND the viewer. Counterproductive.
The font seems decent but I closed the tab because I don't have this kind of time.
That's a very apt way to put it, haha. Might steal that for future references, thanks!
Funnily enough, viewing 27" at 140ppi from 1 meter, my brain mistook the slashed '0' for a 6 or 8 when looking at the headings.
Using wezterm and alacritty (fedora 38) they look wildly different from JetBrains Mono - specially the width/ line height, but on the website they look similar in width/line height.
Anyone knows why? Any tips? Ty!
What a fantastic quote this site's author chose to illustrate why I might like this font!
> To use all features, visit website on desktop.
Also on this website though... :(
>Could not extract "CommitMono-450-Italic.otf" from the "CommitMono.zip" archive: The archive file is incomplete
I think the ZIP file is just broken.
(Perhaps this is Safari passing the download through some more rigorous "malware checker" on macOS that Chrome/Firefox doesn't have access too?)
Actual program listings would make for better examples.
Btw, I use a non-Qwerty layout so WASD is nonsense to me.
// sorry for the initial typo of mintty as minty
> Imagine that you have before you a flagon of wine. You may choose your own favourite vintage for this imaginary demonstration, so that it be a deep shimmering crimson in colour. You have two goblets before you. One is of solid gold, wrought in the most exquisite patterns. The other is of crystal-clear glass, thin as a bubble, and as transparent. Pour and drink; and according to your choice of goblet, I shall know whether or not you are a connoisseur of wine. For if you have no feelings about wine one way or the other, you will want the sensation of drinking the stuff out of a vessel that may have cost thousands of pounds; but if you are a member of that vanishing tribe, the amateurs of fine vintages, you will choose the crystal, because everything about it is calculated to reveal rather than to hide the beautiful thing which it was meant to contain.
> Bear with me in this long-winded and fragrant metaphor; for you will find that almost all the virtues of the perfect wine-glass have a parallel in typography. There is the long, thin stem that obviates fingerprints on the bowl. Why? Because no cloud must come between your eyes and the fiery hearth of the liquid. Are not the margins on book pages similarly meant to obviate the necessity of fingering the type-pages? Again: The glass is colourless or at the most only faintly tinged in the bowl, because the connoisseur judges wine partly by its colour and is impatient of anything that alters it. There are a thousand mannerisms in typography that are as impudent and arbitrary as putting port in tumblers of red or green glass! When a goblet has a base that looks too small for security, it does not matter how cleverly it is weighted; you feel nervous lest it should tip over. There are ways of setting lines of type which may work well enough, and yet keep the reader subconsciously worried by the fear of 'doubling' lines, reading three words as one, and so forth.
> Printing demands a humility of mind, for the lack of which many of the fine arts are even now floundering in self-conscious and maudlin experiments. There is nothing simple or dull in achieving the transparent page. Vulgar ostentation is twice as easy as discipline. When you realise that ugly typography never effaces itself, you will be able to capture beauty as the wise men capture happiness by aiming at something else. The 'stunt typographer' learns the fickleness of rich men who hate to read. Not for them are long breaths held over serif and kern, they will not appreciate your splitting of hair-spaces. Nobody (save the other craftsmen) will appreciate half your skill. But you may spend endless years of happy experiment in devising that crystalline goblet which is worthy to hold the vintage of the human mind.
https://practicaltypography.com/drowning-the-crystal-goblet....
Love it. And I totally disagree.
Invisibility is akin to the food fight about intuitive user interfaces. (Right?) I've talked myself blue in the face about that one. As an advocate for "intuitive", I still have no idea what that means. Like all of us, I just know it when I see it. (Ha!)
Passionate, well argued, aesthetic disagreements are just the best.
Reminds me of the documentary Helvetica [2007]. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847817/
but the color contrast on the website could do with an adjustment. it's not very good for accessibility.
bookmarked. might give the font a try.
Great feature! I wish this would be more common. Thanks for sharing.
No thank you