If you think Arabic horrible because it has connected letters, so is cursive. But I like both cursive and Arabic. You can easily distinguish separate words as the words' letters are connected, and you don't have to put less space to show that some letters are making a word. It's not optimized for printing and digital fonts I agree. But you can't say it's not useful for daily use. It's so much easier on paper.

How can you describe something as “objectively” horrible-looking? Your opinion on the way that something looks is precisely that: an opinion. I’d add that neither the Arabic nor Latin alphabets were designed for anything. They both evolved organically from other previous alphabets.

>As I understand, Arabic alphabet wasn't designed to be practical for daily use and only for writing sacred texts.

You clearly don't. Arabic was the premier language for philosophy, science, and mathematics in the middle ages. Algebra, algorithms, zero, cipher, average, and so on are all etymologically Arabic. One might start to suspect bigotry from a "Panzerschrek."

>Letters have similar form to each other, joints between them makes it harder to take them apart.

Your brain is not powerful enough to pattern-match, but your incapacity is not universal.

>It's objectively so horrible.

Literal billions in the world disagree. I might equally claim that the Arabic abjad is infinitely more beautiful than the pedestrian Latin alphabet, especially when expressed in the ugly and diseased Orc-tongue that is called German. [1] Your lack of taste is not universal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS_-7B1FAbE&pp=ygUaY2hpbmVzZ...