I'll be honest, I've never grasped the perspective that sees typography as a meaningful aesthetic property of code. I mean, when I look at code, I'm not appreciating it as visual art, I'm reading it. Usually the point at which that stops happening is the point at which my brain is tired enough that it's time to go do something else for a little while and recover.

So, as long as the font I'm using doesn't actively impair legibility, which is a pretty low baseline, it doesn't really matter - and in any case, if it's a visual aesthetic I want, I'll go do it in Illustrator where I can actually have precise control over every aspect of that aesthetic, instead of forcing my programming environment to double as an installation art piece.

(DejaVu Sans Mono, in case anyone cares, or Menlo on Apple hardware since it doesn't want installing. Haven't changed it in what must be close to a couple decades by now; somebody sneakernetted me a copy of Vera Sans Mono in my earliest days of moving up from the helpdesk and I never looked back. Doesn't changing fonts impose a cognitive overhead of its own for a while?)

...all of which is to say I favor brutalism, I guess.

If you're working on code for most of the day, you will absolutely be making decisions that enhance your experience.

Could be an editor, monitor, chair, etc. It might not seem like some of those little things matter -- if I can sit in the chair, it works for me! -- but they do to some and typography is one of those things.

I don't understand folks who don't understand this. I get it if you don't personally care about typography but every developer is making QOL decisions.

I mean sure, I get that it's a QoL thing and that some people care more than others - I'm not arguing it shouldn't matter to anyone, so much as saying I have trouble grasping what specifically about it does make it matter to those who value it highly, I guess.