It's interesting to observe how foreign writing systems fit the needs of the languages they are were designed to record.
Korean Hangeul is the gold standard here. Letter shapes represent their articulation and harmony and modify in regular ways to represent related pronunciations. You find similar observations in the writing systems for Arabic, Hindi, and Chinese. In the case of Cyrillic, it's that vowels come in soft and hard pairs.
Perhaps it's bias, but the Latin alphabet seems unopinionated by comparison. It has a good spread of characters for consonants and vowels and is amenable to diacritics or even novel characters. The only thing it's seriously lacking is a good way to transcribe tones. Chinese characters are great for writing a language with a near-1:1 morpheme:syllable correspondence, but its adaptation to write Japanese was famously clumsy.
Korean Hangeul is the gold standard here. Letter shapes represent their articulation and harmony and modify in regular ways to represent related pronunciations. You find similar observations in the writing systems for Arabic, Hindi, and Chinese. In the case of Cyrillic, it's that vowels come in soft and hard pairs.
Perhaps it's bias, but the Latin alphabet seems unopinionated by comparison. It has a good spread of characters for consonants and vowels and is amenable to diacritics or even novel characters. The only thing it's seriously lacking is a good way to transcribe tones. Chinese characters are great for writing a language with a near-1:1 morpheme:syllable correspondence, but its adaptation to write Japanese was famously clumsy.