Font Comparison: Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono vs. JetBrains Mono and Fira Code

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall impressions of Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono

  • Many find it very legible and distinct, especially useful at small sizes or at a distance.
  • Some think it appears “too fat” or too wide/expanded compared to JetBrains Mono and Fira Code, making reading feel like “tripping over empty space.”
  • A few users report poor or inconsistent kerning, especially in certain identifiers, and dislike some specific glyphs (e.g., “8”).
  • Several people like Atkinson for websites or long-form reading, but find the Mono variant less appealing for IDEs/terminals.

Character distinction, context, and accessibility

  • One camp argues that in natural language, context easily disambiguates similar characters, so hyper-distinction is overemphasized.
  • Others say exact character clarity matters for passwords, URLs, and code; Atkinson is praised in those contexts.
  • “Mirror glyphs” (e.g., b/q) are discussed mainly in relation to dyslexia and letter flipping; some are skeptical this is practically important in coding, others say research and accessibility guidelines take it seriously.
  • There’s a recurring distinction between legibility (per-character clarity) and readability (whole-word/line comfort); some fear hyperlegible fonts harm the latter.

Monospace vs proportional fonts for coding

  • A long subthread debates using proportional fonts for code:
    • Proponents say proportional fonts reduce cognitive load and feel more “natural,” similar to UI text.
    • Opponents stress alignment (ASCII tables, columnar code, terminals) and easier spotting of typos, plus homoglyph risks.
  • Some suggest quasi-proportional or “smart-kerning” monospace fonts as a compromise.

Ligatures and font features

  • Atkinson’s lack of programming ligatures is seen by some as a feature (no “magic” arrows or changing glyphs).
  • Others note ligatures are optional: many terminals/IDEs and CSS allow toggling OpenType features.
  • Some like partial approaches (e.g., subtle spacing tweaks rather than full symbol substitution).

Tools, distribution, and implementation notes

  • Links shared for Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono from Google Fonts, Braille Institute, Nerd Fonts, Homebrew, and codingfont.com with side‑by‑side and blind tests.
  • Some versions still lack certain glyphs (e.g., backtick).
  • One commenter notes font loading and missing CJK coverage can break apps for non‑Latin users, recommending subsetting and language-specific fallbacks.
  • A mobile rendering bug (images “squished” in Safari) was reported and then fixed.

Alternative favorite coding fonts

  • A wide variety of alternatives are passionately recommended: JetBrains Mono, Fira Code, Iosevka, Cascadia Code, PragmataPro, Intel One Mono, Berkeley Mono, MonoLisa, Commit Mono, Maple Mono, Monaspace, Hack, mononoki, Luxi/Go Mono, Noto/IBM Plex/Source, DejaVu/Menlo, Andale, Segoe UI, classic bitmap-style fonts, and more.
  • Several users say they regularly rotate fonts because they get “tired” of any single one; others stick with one for years.

Skepticism about the article’s framing

  • A few commenters see the piece as a highly technical justification for personal taste rather than an objective conclusion.
  • Some question the non-quantitative nature of “hyperlegibility” claims and argue that aesthetic preference often matters more in everyday developer use.