What do you think about the Lucide icon library

[barthamark]

I'm curious if anyone uses Lucide for icons in their projects. The Orchard Core Admin UI uses Font Awesome, which is great, but the free version lacks trivial icons and might be to thick (which is a design preference obviously, but if you need thin icons, or special icons, you need to pay for the pro version). Lucide on the other hand is completely free, has 1000+ icons, well-maintained, and could be a good replacement for Font Awesome especially with the Admin UI renewal project. What do you think?

[Piedone]

Looks like a good idea for me. They don't clash with each other due to the different class names, right? Because then if we move the admin to Lucide, we can still keep the FA resources, and consumer projects can still keep using it.

[barthamark]

Yes, they can work together.

There’s one related note to keep in mind for the future. There are two ways to add Lucide to a web app:

1. Add the JS library with a short init script. It looks for tags with data-lucide="icon name" and dynamically loads the icons.
   See: https://lucide.dev/guide/packages/lucide#with-unpkg
2. Use lucide-static and load it as a CSS font (similar to Font Awesome).
   It’s not recommended for production because the file is large as all icons are loaded unless you apply tree shaking through a bundler.

That said, I don’t think the size is a huge issue, so I’d personally prefer the static font approach for Orchard Core, though it would need a bit more research and thorough discussion when the time comes.

[Piedone]

Related that FortAwesome/Font-Awesome#20510 was closed. Lucide doesn't do brand icons at all: lucide-icons/lucide#670. Simple Icons is for that, where I opened a request about OC: simple-icons/simple-icons#14101.

[barthamark]

Ah so this is why icons like GitHub became deprecated (still used by Magic Patterns and other tools though). This is a really cool initiative, thanks for creating the issue!