3 ms·
No, we dont because non-keyboard symbols are irritating to type. Look at the history of APL and other symbol based languages. In any case, the computer doesn't
by zdragnar 5y ago
No, we dont because non-keyboard symbols are irritating to type. Look at the history of APL and other symbol based languages.
In any case, the computer doesn't care. It is either a character or something similar stored as binary representing part of an instruction to be compiled into other binary.
I have seen a few proposals for creating languages which are exclusively stored as a generic AST, sufficiently abstract that it can be edited in any variety of "languages" in a capable editor, then stored back into the AST. I havent seen a good proposal for making that actually workable, however. It sounds a bit like storing code as the output from LLVM then expecting an editor to be able to open it as C# or JavaScript or Lisp.