This is so awful to look at I can't even comprehend.

Maybe in 2004 screen real estate was at a premium, but a lot of developers I know now have at least two high resolution monitors, if not a single ultra high (2560x1200) resolution monitor. I'd gladly take the standard monospaced fonts any day.

It really wasn't. I was running three flat-screen monitors in 2004.

This is a bad solution to a problem that didn't exist.

I'm tempted to start using this just for the novelty factor. Anyone glancing over your shoulder will probably assume you're an alien.

http://imgur.com/xktPl.png

Original emacs manual cover: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/its-cover.png

So that's who wrote that finger-crippling macro. It all makes sense now.

"We need to re-engineer the alphabet so that it will be clear at extremely small sizes."

No. We don't.

One fairly large readability issue is the lack of a "coastline" along the tops of the letters. It's like typing in all caps.

Open http://i.imgur.com/xktPl.png in your browser and zoom out.

Frankly, I don't see advantage over the common alphabet, even when considering this problem that nobody actually has.

Leaving aside the fact that there's no chance of everyone adopting a new alphabet to solve a problem that doesn't really exist, I don't like the filled-in parts of letters (G, W and M). They look too unusual in a string of text and would be too hard to write on paper.

Show the font in a very small size.