[wmedrano]

I'm too dumb as well. I flipped this to make it about text editors. Personally, I love my Emacs:

This, like almost all writing about fonts, is bewildering to me. It just doesn't matter. For me, there are just 3 text editors in the world: IDE's, terminal editors, and weird editors (Ed, Teco, etc.)

What's even more strange is reading strong opinions on how great Emacs is, or how terrible NeoVim is ("Gnu good Apache bad", I know.) They're the same thing! I guess I'm too dumb to notice the subtle differences between Lisp and Lua.

[commandlinefan]

> about text editors

I get where you're coming from, but the analogy sort of breaks down here - those of us who work with text editors all the time love our tool of choice because it has features that make our lives easier. I can't see how a font could have or lack a "feature".

[caseyohara]

> I can't see how a font could have or lack a "feature"

Oh boy. Everything about a typeface is a feature, and many of them are functional and not just stylistic choices.

- Monospace glyphs are a feature almost everyone here is familiar with and appreciates.

- Serifs are a feature for readability

- Open apertures like in humanist fonts are more readable

- Closed apertures in grotesque fonts make the text more dense

- Stroke contrast

- X-height

- Variety of weights

- Ligatures

- Dotted or slashed zero to distinguish it from capital O

- Features to distinguish capital I and lowercase l glyphs

...these are all features of a typeface.