I'm torn. Variable fonts are neat, but they also lay bare how woefully complicated every single layer of our software stack is where even displaying a single glyph requires interpreting a Turing-complete programming language. As I get older I increasingly just want a more transparent and understandable system that does less, even if that means giving up bells and whistles like automagic font kerning.
I'm a big fan. Variable fonts aren't just neat -- they're a godsend for graphic design when making things like posters, packaging, etc. To get the font weight just right, to get the letter widths just right. When dealing with a font that comes in just 2 weights or even 5, it's so common to want something exactly in between. Or when you want the typeface to be condensed, but the condensed version is way too condensed -- you want "halfway condensed" which is almost never a thing.
And I don't think most variable fonts require any kind of Turing-complete programming language? They're basically just interpolation. And interpolation is not that much added complexity for the rendering engine.
I agree with you that the kind of Turing-complete calculations that fonts these days are able to do, make me feel uneasy as well. But for me, variable fonts don't fall into that category. I look forward to the day when variable fonts are the norm for typefaces that come in different weights and widths.
I'd argue that it's unavoidable. These glyphs are meant for communicating to humans. Trying to reduce it removes the human element out of it, which can remove concepts like intent and context.
