I don't like the idea of slashing the zero along the «wrong» diagonal; in a humanist typeface, it would have to look either wrong or very heavy. I prefer the dotted zero in my typefaces, e.g. in Cormorant:
Yes, it's surprising how some people think putting some glasses on the Mona Lisa and changing some of the superficial detailing will create an original face, when the underlying proportions clearly betray the plagiarism.
I don't think Glyphs is «artificially beautifying» the curves. When I still worked with FF in the early days, I remember that glyphs tended to change their visual character when you scaled the preview window in FF, since the rather coarse rendering was redrawn for every scaling. In Glyphs, the appearance of a glyph is stable under scaling, so I would assume it is a more faithful rendition of the glyph.
Also, DO SWITCH TO GLYPHS. The rendering is only the tip of the iceberg. The workflow, intuitive interface, automated OpenType programming, and super-powerful curve editing tools are much more important. It's worth every penny ten times over.
Not sure if this translates to FontLab, but in my current Glyphs project, I only have full masters for Hairline and Bold. Whenever I do optical corrections in the Bold that will look excessive in the interpolation, I insert a third master at Medium weight for that glyph only using the brace trick. Example:
Two masters. The /n's shoulder thins too much at light weights.