Pros of JetBrainsMono

• Specifically designed for coding, with enhanced readability for programming languages
• Includes ligatures for common programming symbols, improving code aesthetics
• Offers a wider range of weights and styles, providing more flexibility in design

Cons of JetBrainsMono

• Limited language support compared to Inter's extensive character set
• May not be as suitable for general-purpose text or UI design
• Larger file size due to additional programming-specific features

Code Comparison

Inter:

body {
  font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif;
  font-feature-settings: 'liga' 1, 'calt' 1;
}

JetBrainsMono:

body {
  font-family: 'JetBrains Mono', monospace;
  font-feature-settings: 'liga' 1, 'calt' 1;
}

Both fonts support OpenType features, but JetBrainsMono includes additional programming-specific ligatures that are automatically applied when enabled.

Summary

Inter is a versatile sans-serif font suitable for various applications, while JetBrainsMono is a specialized monospace font optimized for coding. Choose Inter for general-purpose design and broad language support, or JetBrainsMono for enhanced code readability and programming-specific features.

Pros of FiraCode

• Specialized for programming with ligatures for common code sequences
• Wider range of supported languages and character sets
• More extensive documentation and usage guidelines

Cons of FiraCode

• Less suitable for general text and UI design
• Fewer weight options compared to Inter
• May require additional configuration in some IDEs to enable ligatures

Code Comparison

FiraCode:

function (x) => x * 2;
if (x !== null && x !== undefined) {
  console.log("x is defined");
}

Inter:

function (x) => x * 2;
if (x !== null && x !== undefined) {
  console.log("x is defined");
}

While the code appears identical, FiraCode would display ligatures for =>, !==, and &&, enhancing readability for programmers.

Summary

FiraCode is a specialized programming font with ligatures, offering improved code readability but with fewer weight options. Inter is a more versatile font suitable for both programming and general text, with a wider range of weights but without programming-specific ligatures. The choice between the two depends on the primary use case and personal preference for ligatures in code.

Pros of Source Sans

• Extensive language support with over 2,000 glyphs
• Multiple weights and styles, including light, extra-light, and black
• Longer development history and more established user base

Cons of Source Sans

• Less focus on screen readability at small sizes
• Fewer modern features like variable font support
• Less active community engagement and slower update cycle

Code Comparison

Source Sans (OpenType feature code):

feature liga {
    sub f i by f_i;
    sub f l by f_l;
    sub f f by f_f;
} liga;

Inter (OpenType feature code):

feature liga {
    sub f i by f_i;
    sub f l by f_l;
    sub f f by f_f;
    sub f f i by f_f_i;
    sub f f l by f_f_l;
} liga;

Both repositories provide OpenType feature code for ligatures, but Inter includes additional ligature combinations for improved typography.

Inter focuses more on modern web typography and screen readability, while Source Sans offers broader language support and a more traditional typeface design. Inter has a more active development cycle and community engagement, whereas Source Sans benefits from Adobe's extensive type design experience and established reputation in the field.

Pros of Roboto

• Wider language support with extensive character sets
• Longer development history and more established in the design community
• Larger variety of weights and styles available

Cons of Roboto

• Less modern and sleek appearance compared to Inter
• Not as optimized for screen readability at small sizes
• Slightly less consistent spacing and kerning across different weights

Code Comparison

Inter:

body {
  font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif;
  font-feature-settings: 'cv05' 1;
}

Roboto:

body {
  font-family: 'Roboto', sans-serif;
  font-weight: 400;
}

Summary

Inter and Roboto are both popular sans-serif typefaces used in web and app design. Roboto, developed by Google, offers a wider range of language support and has been around longer. It provides more weight options but may not be as optimized for on-screen readability as Inter.

Inter, a more recent typeface, focuses on modern design principles and screen optimization. It offers excellent readability at small sizes and has a more consistent appearance across weights. However, it may not have as extensive language support as Roboto.

The choice between these two fonts often comes down to specific project requirements, target audience, and personal design preferences.

Pros of Fira

• Wider range of font styles and weights, including mono and code variants
• Longer development history and more established user base
• Designed specifically for Mozilla products, ensuring compatibility

Cons of Fira

• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to Inter
• May not be as optimized for modern screen displays as Inter
• Fewer language support options and OpenType features

Code Comparison

While both fonts are primarily used for display purposes rather than in code, here's a comparison of how they might be implemented in CSS:

Fira:

body {
  font-family: 'Fira Sans', sans-serif;
  font-weight: 400;
}

Inter:

body {
  font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif;
  font-feature-settings: 'cv05' 1;
}

Note that Inter uses font-feature-settings to enable specific OpenType features, which is less common in Fira implementations.