love your font, but having tasted the beauty that is Fira Code’s ligatures, i can’t go back.

having both fantasque and those ligatures would be perfection!

the contextual alternatives are also amazing: having e.g. the * in *ptr and - in foo-bar adjusted based on the height of the characters next to them… yum!

Hi,

First of all thanks for creating such a wonderful font. I'm trying to package this font for Debian and filed my intent for the same. Here I got some concern raised by a fellow developer on the name of font.

Is it possible for upstream to consider a name change for the font?.

Thank you,

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is actually an issue with IJ or the actual font, but I've noticed that at size 13 or 14 (I guess this is pts?) in intelliJ on windows, underscores aren't visible. See this screenshot:

It's okay at 12 or 16 though, however "12" in IntelliJ is a lot smaller than "12" in the Windows font preview tool, and a bit too small for me.

Any ideas?

Otherwise - I love this font! Thanks!

Don't know if that's related to the renaming or the PyCharm IDE, but the latest Cosmic Sans was working flawlessly, i could choose "CosmicSansNeueMono" just fine: i then updated to the latest version via AUR (Arch Linux) and now i can't even look it up in the font selection. Any ideas?

EDIT: just to add this is one of the most awesome coding fonts i've seen in a lot of time, this is even better than Monaco, Menlo and Meslo! Keep up the fantastic work!

This is how 14pt looks in Xcode, and also in Terminal. Note the caret location/size line height – it's too high, like there is too much padding on top.

For comparison, this is Inconsolata 14pt – line height is correct, no extra padding on top:

And this one is Menlo 14pt, note how big it is compared with Fantasque and Inconsolata.

Strangely, some apps don't show this extra padding on top, like BBEdit (but they may be using Carbon font rendering) and Java-based apps (AppCode).

On my Windows 7 PC, I installed the medium weight and when I tried the installing the bold weight it asked me to replace the first weight that I installed. I'm guessing that it's because the OpenType font name is the same and that's how Windows decides if it needs to replace an existing font. Let me know if you need some more details.

Thanks for a great monospaced font!

I find it misleading from time to time when skimming the source code like this:

This screenshot above is Rust Syntax highlighted by Sublime Text 3 + Fantasque Sans Mono v1.7.2, macOS High Sierra.

In case you're wondering, in Rust, like ES6 let, we use let to start the declaration of variable or constant.

Any other variants look Okay for me, except the italic variant of lowercase l that somehow looks like uppercase L in general when skimming.

In GCC output, single quotes are distinct from apostrophes:

../fstext/deterministic-fst-compo.h:96:12: error: ‘state_table_’ was not declared in this scope

I get the following rendering issue with Fantasque Sans Mono Bold 1.7 on this line:

Not sure if this is an issue or not, as it's very subjective. But the tiny little space at the bottom of the Q is too small, and makes it look blurry/muddy.

So, I've never submitted an issue about type before, so, I'm not sure about the etiquette here … it's a bit more subjective, and artistic, than anything I've ever commented on before. So, take my complaints as ‘this is my experience using your work,’ instead of as any instruction to change your style, I suppose? :P

I use a lot of backticks, for a variety of reasons; amongst others,

• I write a lot of Markdown documentation for code.
• I write a lot of shell-script (often, with Markdown documentation within it. O_O)

Unfortunately, although I've been so happy with switching to Fantasque as my code-editing typeface (as opposed to Terminal-window typeface), it's made any task involving backticks a bit … hellish.

Take a gander at how difficult it is to figure out what's going on in these:

In order, those are:

• Two backticks, followed by ‘curly single-quotes,’ and a single 'straight-quote.'
• A "straight double-quote", a 'straight-quote', and two backticks.
• Two pairs of backticks followed by two pairs of ‘curly single-quotes.’

It's gotten to the point where I've bound a hotkey to swap my editor's typeface out, when I'm staring at a block of text and I just can't determine what the mess of quotes are.

So, if I were to have my way in all things, I'd love to see:

• Straight-quotes that are distinguishable from curly-quotes (after all, ’this’ doesn't look very pretty anyway; if you can't differentiate between start and end quotes, then why are you trying to make them faux-curly at all?), and that are preferably … well, straight. Although the latter is more of taste thing for myself than a usability issue. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
• And, so very, very importantly for me, visually-distinguished backticks. Glancing at a couple other specimens, it looks like most editing typefaces go with a very “sharp” appearance for the backtick; but even when it's not super thin / pointed at the bottom, it's always straight as an arrow. I really do think it'd be best to make the backtick straight, to distinguish from the opening-curly-quote and straight-single-quote.

Here's a couple samples from other fixed-width faces I've used. Out of all of them, DejaVu Sans is (unsurprisingly) the most usable, and probably, the most elegant; but I don't think the approach that works for it is going to work for Fantasque's feel, so …

I absolutely love this font, and I use it in every IDE I work with. I just recently discovered that it was no longer called Cosmic Sans Neue, and thus that there were new versions available.

I was initially excited to see what had changed, but I think I like some aspects of the older versions better. The new italic variant is too oblique: it's hard to read, and the corners of some italic glyphs overlap with the characters next to them. (This is particularly egregious with brackets and parentheses.) The old italics were already pretty easily distinguishable.

The new quotation marks are also a bit confusing. In a vacuum, I think they'd be pretty cool. But unfortunately, a lot of text editors and IM clients have taken to substituting standard ASCII quotes with specialized left and right versions. Which, of course, don't compile if they find their way into source code. The old ones might be bland, but they're much less scary. :)

I hope this is the right place to submit this sort of feedback; I couldn't find any other outlet for it. And either way, I have the old version of the font, so I'm good. Just wanted to do what little I could to contribute to a great project.

On systems without future, there would issues with missing past.

    from past.builtins import xrange
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'past'

Installing future like pip install future can help, but it bothers.

Changing xrange to range can be OK since python3 has no xrange anymore, while both 2 and 3 can have range.

The performance impact with python2 should be minor.

Tested OK on latest Debian bullseye/bookworm, Ubuntu jammy, and Archlinux, with python2 linked to 2.7.18, or 2.7.3, while python linked to 3.10.8, 3.10.6, or 3.9.2.

Hi,

I found that this font does not include the Dirac notation: '⟨' and '⟩'.

They are ubiquitous in theoretical physics and mathematics.

Could you add them to your font?

Another question is that I wish you could use dot zero in this font, or release another version with dot zero.

Sincerely,

Hi,

FSM makes a great programmer's font, which I use a lot. The distinction between 1Iil|, 0O, 56S and 8B is excellent, and FSM does not run as wide as some other mono fonts, so it fits better when combined with proportional fonts in a documentation. The one (small) gripe I have is that the tilde ~ is a bit too flat and could be mistaken for an - on "diagonal" reading. Hack (https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack), IMHO, has a better, stronger curved, tilde.

Thanks Engelbert

A recent YouTube video about a non-free font called Comic Code prompted me to start comparing it to a number of different free and open source monospace fonts. Fantasque Sans Mono was actually the closest I've come to finding something close to Comic Code. It's very nice. But I noticed something odd about it.

I don't know much about font design, but I'm really curious whether it's a deliberate design choice to make Fantasque Sans Mono a bit smaller than other similar fonts. I'm using Font Manager from Flathub to compare a number of different fonts and I noticed that Fantasque is just... smaller. I was switching fonts in Visual Studio Code and noticed that I always wanted to zoom in or increase the editor font size whenever I tried Fantasque. The Font Manager app showed that this wasn't just my imagination. It really is relatively smaller at the same "size".

The screenshot below shows the font compared to four other fonts that share the same purpose of being good monospace "coding" fonts. You can see that there is an unusually large difference in length and height with Fantasque Sans Mono and the other fonts, even though they are all being set to the same "font size" for the comparison. All the other fonts are basically exactly the same length for the same string of characters, not even a single character width of difference. Fantasque has a bit less space between some of the letters, but it's also just physically smaller in general, leading to about a dozen character widths difference in length.

Is this something done on purpose? Or is it an issue with the settings used while generating the font that might be adjusted to match some sort of font size vs pixel dimensions standard better? Just curious.