I really like the result. Especially the i and j with the connected dot. I expected them to look off but they really integrate nicely.

That being said I don't think it is about Cyrillic vs Latin but more about traditional cursive vs modern.

The traditional Latin cursives were all pretty much optimized to be written in one running flow. Kurrent and cursive all come from Latin currere which means running.

Admittedly none of them go as far as connecting the i and j dots but otherwise they are pretty much completely connected. But then again I also never seen anyone writing a word and doing the dots afterwards. With traditional cursive you do your upstroke, lift the pen, place the dot (or short short stroke), reverse and do the downstroke. Lifting the pen yes, backtracking no.

With the connected dots OP's Backtrack-Free Cursive still wins here and I really like that because someone found an optimization to something that already has been optimized for centuries.

> With traditional cursive you do your upstroke, lift the pen, place the dot (or short short stroke), reverse and do the downstroke.

I do it like this, backtracking to add a dot doesn't seem so bad when you're lifting the pen anyways and it doesn't break the flow.

It's been a minute since I've had to write very quickly, but I'd imagine if necessary this step can be skipped. Would have to try it out.