I didn't know what you were referring to since I use FF with NoScript. Enabled javascript for the domain and whoa, that is really hard to read. Very strange choice, the article is much easier to read with the default browser fonts. So I guess javascript-blockers FTW?
Yes, and it’s not just because it’s cursive. I’m in my late sixties so am thoroughly familiar with cursive — just have no use for it as a font, much less in code.
Cursive?
Yes, that's the one. Very hard to read quickly, and an odd choice for a use case that I'd think would require absolute clarity and rapid recognition.
If you know cursive, it usually reads fast and clear. I don't think it is widely taught anymore though, as it was mostly a footnote when I was in school many years ago. It is a strange choice for the article considering the rarity of cursive these days.
The cursive throws me off and I am heavily distracted by it. teho (to each his own)
I'd argue, on the contrary, it's perfect for keywords: you recognized those mostly by shape anyway, so now they don't even look like actual names which is an upside for me.
it's not cursive because the letters are not connected (unless my fontconfig setup is messed up). these are cursive letterforms completely divorced from their utility which makes them awkward and jarring
That's called Cursive. A an elegant style of handwriting from a more civilized age.
If you're handwriting, sure. But only for your code snippets? That's a bit weird.
Not uncommon but still baffling
Try Operator Mono Lig -- beautiful & readable italics for code styling.
It is awful. Fortunately most people seem to agree and do not use it.