While I do think these look nice (appropriate even), maintaining consistency across a large team of devs is where this type of stylization breaks down. Not everyone is using the same code editor, not everyone's configuration is the same. At the end of the day it's easier to write and maintain the long-hand word versions.
I got confused because I tried to use ctrl-k and wasn't getting any results; after reading the docs, at least on my system (neovim on mac), ctrl-K (uppercase) is the proper shortcut for entering digraphs when in insert mode. (:help digraph)
Came here to mention this exactly. I have a quick intro to the compose key on my website [0] and an intro for how to use Unicode with Latex[1], and there are other resources around the web if you are looking. The idea of a compose key for Unicode originated in Plan 9, as far as I know.
WinCompose offers this. I find it slightly buggy with caps as compose, but it works well enough and it can read an XCompose config file. (It does not honor XCompose includes IIRC, you have to merge everything into one file.)
I do really like modern emoji pickers in general. Compose keys are nice, but I love fuzzy filter interfaces that search as you type. Compared to compose sequences, they let you get up to a reasonable speed very quickly.
Unicode in code might be what pushes people to consider variable-width font. Just look at the simple arrow in a text editor (hopefully the text filter on this website thinks this symbol is OK): → (U+2192 RIGHTWARDS ARROW). It’s tiny. And I notice that the author uses plain `->`. You do need at least an “em” width for that kind of symbol.
But I wouldn’t want a normal variable-width font where colons are tiny and at-signs are gigantic. I read a programming email list in my regular webclient and it can be quite tiring. :)
Right, but they are general purpose monospace fonts. I would think something like a Haskell font or Python font would go beyond that and provide tailored designs for those languages. I wouldn't be surprised if those exist, but haven't seen them.
Another problem with using unicode in code is the handling of Unicode equivalence, compatibility, and normalization[1]. The same glyph can be produced in multiple ways. How is the reader, vim or emacs, and the compiler supposed to handle these cases?
My favorite solution to this problem comes from the Julia community, where it's really, really nice to have your code representation of a mathematical formula look like the actual formula (because you need to work with scientists and engineers who know the formulas as math, and using the appropriate symbols makes reading it at a glance much, much easier):
This is also how it works in Lean and in VSCode with the Lean extension it will also show you overlay saying how to type the symbol if you are unfamiliar with it. I'm not sure who came up with this feature first but it seems emacs has something similar so it probably came from there. (Edit: Someone else here thinks it originated in Plan 9) It works quite well.
However, there is still a room for improvement:
1. Like was mentioned elsewhere in this thread on copy we could convert the symbol to how it is typed in order to support text (or even ASCII) only tools.
2. Better Integration with the browser and development tools like git so they get prettified when possible.
You can also insert unicode using XCompose (WinCompose on windows). The benefit is that this ability carries to other applications as well, which is pretty nice. I for one like to communicate about math over text channels like discord.
Relatedly, I appreciate that most Unicode math symbols are in the built-in Windows emoji IME opened with Win+. or Win+; whichever feels more comfortable. Unicode math stuff is under the Omega (Ω) tab.
The biggest shortcoming is that emoji themselves have type-to-search, but math/international symbols don't and you either get to mouse through it or arrow/tab/enter through it.
But the nice advantage is that it has been built-in for several Windows versions now and you can count on it to work nearly everywhere.
I think the fact that the author somehow thinks that Greek letters are prettier and easier to understand hints at an enormous bias.
Many people would not know their names, most people are probably unfamiliar to Greek letters beyond beta or gamma, with some exceptions for pi, which has the dubious property of being confusingly ambiguous if the constant is meant or a simple high-brow variation on a variable named p.
It's my conviction that there are a lot of things in computing that are made harder than they necessarily need to be by bad naming and chief amongst them is the insistence on borrowing mathematical notations and jargon.
In my mind, it is mostly a question of elitism and exclusion.
That "enormous bias" could also simply be that someone is using polar coordinates a lot. It's hard to not encounter rho and theta in literature about it...
That's just one example, Greek letters have been used in science for a very long time and I personally find code that uses the same notation used in literature easier to reason about and much more pleasant to read.
Code should be easy to read to the relevant parties. If you're doing scientific code, the relevant parties know the math, and coming up with your own creative name merely obfuscates the meaning.
It's not like programming is completely devoid of terms of the art already. What's a Class? or an Object? or a Map? Etc. Etc.
I’d like to voice the contrarian opinion that, as someone who isn’t a mathematician, these symbols make the code look like gibberish to me. I had to squint to even see the circle on the end of the lollipop symbol, no way I’m not mistaking that for a hyphen. I don’t know the names for these symbols, so my brain has to 1) learn new images, 2) pattern match them throughout the code. I would be totally lost. If the code used full names I could at least look them up and learn what they mean.
> ∀ instead of forall, which is faster to input than the whole word.
It reminds me of the idiom that code is often written once but read often, so one would want to optimize for readability and not fewer keystrokes. At least for production code.
To be fair to math symbols, code is read often by programmers, especially programmers of the language you're writing in. For things that get used a lot, short symbols are fine, because everybody reading the code will have seen a lot of the relevant syntax.
Otherwise it would be like asserting that programming would be better if we eschewed all specific jargon. Why say "bit" when we can say "single digit for which there are only 2 possible values"?
I have to respond to this with a resounding "meh" tbh. ∀ is a pretty unique symbol, it is very readable even if you don't know what it means. Programming forces you to learn new words constantly anyway. It's not like "object instance", "monad", "recursion" or even "while loop" are all that intuitive to beginners yet all programmers learned them anyway. (feel free to ignore any terms you're not familiar with, they're just examples)
∀ might be just as incomprehensible as OOP for a starting programmer, but for anyone taking even a small amount of time to learn it is not difficult at all.
My guess is that the majority of Haskell programmers who are comfortable enough with the forall keyword to use it in practice would find the symbol ∀ to be more readable than the keyword, rather than less. (This is not snark, it's my actual belief.)
IMHO the mathematical language is an impediment for learning math for exactly this reason. It's chock full of cryptic symbols with no obvious meaning that make it incomprehensible to anyone who has not taken years to learn it and also surprisingly difficult to enter into a computer. Math is hard to read because quill pens were difficult to use and much of the syntax was made up on the spot by people who were better at thinking mathematically than communicating ideas. But so many people have spent the effort to learn it that nobody wants to create a "dumbed down" version that a layman might understand.
It is kind of like everyone in the 60s decided that APL was the one true computer language and all interest in other languages died off entirely and when anybody complains about the syntax they are told that they just need to go to school for 4 years and they'll appreciate the beauty.
If you open any reasonable math textbook (except for maybe logic related ones), chances are, you won't see the ∀ symbol anywhere at all. It's often considered bad taste to write a symbol like this when you can just write "for all". The main obstacle in learning math comes from not understanding the background material enough and basically never from not understanding the notation.
And the notation are introduced to you gradually. Even books that do not have a chapter on the notation used, will have a reference page. If not, you’re not reading introductory material and some background is assumed.
How would the notation be "introduced to you" at all, when reading source code? What book would there be? How would you know how to find it?
This is a serious drawback to the traditional math notation: if you didn't come up along one specific educational pathway, it seems to be effectively impossible to work your way in and figure out what any of it means. You can't pronounce any of it, you can't look it up; even if you can work out the names of the symbols, they often mean different things in different contexts. It is a mess.
For many years now, the way I have ingested CS papers is to read the introduction closely, getting my head around the concept, then bail out once the inscrutable symbols show up and go find an actual implementation in some real, documented, parseable programming language - any one will do - from which I can readily infer what the rest of the paper was supposed to mean.
Perhaps this is true for some texts, but take a look at math journals where mathematicians are writing for other mathematicians within their own field. They reuse symbols, sometime an integral symbol is for Riemann integration and sometimes it's for Lebesgue integration. The subject of the paper will make it clear which is which.
Even in our own field, Computer Science, there are too many confusing cases: Knuth uses |S| to mean the cardinality of set S, |f| to be the number of solutions when f is a boolean, |x| to be the absolute value of x, |z| to be the absolute value of a complex number, and |a| to be the length of a. All within the same book, TAOCP vol 4A Part 1.
Those notations are well-known standard notation for the same general concept, "the size of".
What "the size of" means is different applied to each type of object, and may have to be defined to explain some of them (esp. |f|), but it's common in math that general concepts apply differently to different things, while having some properties in common.
I think the notation is helpful rather than confusing because "the size of" carries with it some intuitive connotations which are common to each of those examples.
You can go back and read maths texts from before algebra was in common use. Before people had these symbols they had to write out their proofs and derivations using the plain language of their day.
tldr; it’s tedious reading those proofs. And it’s laborious to write them. Such labour limits the thoughts one can have. Once algebra has solidified there was an explosion in the pace and depth of mathematics.
Sure: And the best way we have found (maybe just so far?) has been to introduce more symbolism. But even today, all guides on good mathematical writing urge you not to go overboard with them; a well-written mathematical text is a reasonable mixture of symbols and prose.
In fact, it’s pretty common for math students to want to use only symbols at some point. What they write becomes unintelligible to everyone else (and maybe even themselves) and at some point they (usually) wise up.
If you Google for ∀ you'll get a explanation of what it means. Same for ∫. Specialized fields require specialized knowledge. Same goes for programming, especially subfields of it. Every company has their own brand of programming language, C++ at Microsoft isn't the same as C++ at Google or Redhat or Apple. A new employee at a job will take months to be oboarded because they have to learn the company's dialect. During that onboarding, they'll learn about new words and they'll also introduce new symbols if they have to.
What does that mean for code that is being developed out in the open? Does it raise the bar for entry? Arguably there's already a bar to entry, which is being able to read English and being able to program in the first place. That there are some parts of the code that say "here be dragons" to the uninitiated who haven't yet Googled the meaning of the unfamiliar words and symbols seems like an entirely reasonable state of the world. If it's sufficiently popular, an explanation article, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root can be made, or an entire site, like http://explainxkcd.com.
There will always be more things to know (just today I learned about thixomolding. The science behind that has its own set of symbols to pick up), some of it will just require additional learning in order to learn.
I love these symbols because once you learn them you can instantly spot where all your loops are, it really make things compact, and reveals the structure of your code far more efficiently.
A solution to the problem if incomprehensibility is to use a plugin to replace the words. I use emacs prettify symbols:
Possibly a better way to achieve a similar level of prettiness would be (ab)use of vim's conceal feature. Through its judicious use, the author can have "forall" appear to them as ∀, "alpha" as α, etc., without imposing these symbols on their colleagues.
Agree, there is definitely a trade-off, I certainly don't know how to input those characters quickly even if the author states it is faster in Vim and I am not a Vim newbie. Also, if you get a stacktrace in a log file, do they still print nicely? Do they still print nicely if I'm viewing that stacktrace on a build server's web interface? There are probably some number of utilities that this code is "viewed" by that don't correctly handle non-ascii unicode and the usability would suffer at the expense of the beauty/terseness. They do look pretty though.
Well the article mentions Ctrl-k+FA to put in the ∀ symbol, but it should be fairly easy to make it output "forall" instead and then use the concealing feature to turn it into ∀. That would get you the best of both worlds, no?
Honestly, I would have had this concern ~10 years ago, but it's 2023. Unicode is ubiquitous, to the point that you'd need to pretty aggressively go out of your way to find things breaking due to it.
I agree, in Kitty I'd have to hit C-S-u and then type fora... to get ∀. Good thing I can just type forall and the formatter replaces the keyword with the symbol for me :) Same for transforming othey symbols, like :: and =>, <=, ->, <- into single characters.
Are there newer versions of Roboto Mono that support all these Unicode codepoints? [EDIT: No, I checked and there are not[0].] The one I have does not support ∃, ∈, and ∷, and probably others.
I agree that this is very pretty, but font support is absolutely critical if you're going to do this.
A few people have mentioned the compose key as a way to insert Unicode characters system-wide.
I also really like Espanso[0]:
You can use it to replace any typed string with anything else, it even supports forms and executing scripts / shell commands. There's tons of fancy stuff you can do with it, but just mapping something like \alpha or :a* to ɑ is easy too.
(For greek characters, there's a package that uses a syntax like \alpha\)
Using the equals sign (=) for assignment is unfortunate. Mathematically, a=a+5 is confusing. Algol 60 (and its grandchild Pascal) are a bit better and represent this as a:=a+5, but this is an odd notation too. A left pointing arrow would be a better notation for the common assignment statement, at least to me.
Does this mean I'm ready to embrace the use of mathematical notation via unicode glyphs in programming? No. I have a math degree and after dozens of university courses on math I've seen a lot of math notation. This notation uses a dizzying number of symbols across various mathematical disciples. LaTeX allows one to use any of 75 distinct kinds of arrows alone! Left, right, doubled, up, down, diagonal to the upper right, looped, long, bidirectional, harpooned, wiggly, maps-to, and so forth. That's just the arrows. Why does LaTeX allow typesetting with so many distinct arrows? Because mathematicians use them as distinct concepts.
I count 160 relational symbols available for use with standard LaTeX: less-than, equal, equivalent, congruent, subset, parallel, similar, approximate, the list goes on and on. See [1].
Mathematicians don't even use these symbols consistently. Consider the ubiquitous lambda, appearing all over in functional programming. Surely, the use of a lower-case greek lambda is prettier than spelling out the word 'lambda', but it may in many contexts not stand for an anonymous function. It's use as a symbol can also mean: wavelength of any wave, number of offspring, radioactive decay constant, occurrence density within a time interval, eigenvalues, charge density, Lagrange multiplier, empty string, and so forth. Wikipedia lists 24 distinct uses for lambda, [2].
Why do mathematicians, engineers, and scientists use so many different symbols? Because they are doing something fundamentally different with them than programmers. They use the symbols as abbreviations that will be understood by their audience, which might be students watching a lecture, readers of a technical article, or even themselves at some time in the future. The context in all of these uses is very different than the context of a program. The program must be precise and unambiguous, and the program may be one hundred times longer than a published math paper. For this reason, spelled out identifiers and keywords using standard ASCII glyphs are wordier and less "pretty" but are far more practical.
I think the applicability of using maths symbols in a program is highly domain dependent. It'd be reasonable to use it for a physics simulation. You probably should not use it for a banking application.
61 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] thread[0]: https://hakon.gylterud.net/tutorials/unicode.html
[1]: https://hakon.gylterud.net/tutorials/latex-maths-unicode.htm...
https://github.com/samhocevar/wincompose
http://wincompose.info/
I haven't yet found a solution that works very well for macOS— a few years ago, some mappings were not possible with the solutions I found.
∀ ° ∫ Ω
But I wouldn’t want a normal variable-width font where colons are tiny and at-signs are gigantic. I read a programming email list in my regular webclient and it can be quite tiring. :)
https://github.com/i-tu/Hasklig
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence
LaTeX. I type \Beta, press TAB, and boom, β.
However, there is still a room for improvement: 1. Like was mentioned elsewhere in this thread on copy we could convert the symbol to how it is typed in order to support text (or even ASCII) only tools.
2. Better Integration with the browser and development tools like git so they get prettified when possible.
The biggest shortcoming is that emoji themselves have type-to-search, but math/international symbols don't and you either get to mouse through it or arrow/tab/enter through it.
But the nice advantage is that it has been built-in for several Windows versions now and you can count on it to work nearly everywhere.
Many people would not know their names, most people are probably unfamiliar to Greek letters beyond beta or gamma, with some exceptions for pi, which has the dubious property of being confusingly ambiguous if the constant is meant or a simple high-brow variation on a variable named p.
It's my conviction that there are a lot of things in computing that are made harder than they necessarily need to be by bad naming and chief amongst them is the insistence on borrowing mathematical notations and jargon.
In my mind, it is mostly a question of elitism and exclusion.
That's just one example, Greek letters have been used in science for a very long time and I personally find code that uses the same notation used in literature easier to reason about and much more pleasant to read.
It's not like programming is completely devoid of terms of the art already. What's a Class? or an Object? or a Map? Etc. Etc.
> ∀ instead of forall, which is faster to input than the whole word.
It reminds me of the idiom that code is often written once but read often, so one would want to optimize for readability and not fewer keystrokes. At least for production code.
Otherwise it would be like asserting that programming would be better if we eschewed all specific jargon. Why say "bit" when we can say "single digit for which there are only 2 possible values"?
∀ might be just as incomprehensible as OOP for a starting programmer, but for anyone taking even a small amount of time to learn it is not difficult at all.
It is kind of like everyone in the 60s decided that APL was the one true computer language and all interest in other languages died off entirely and when anybody complains about the syntax they are told that they just need to go to school for 4 years and they'll appreciate the beauty.
This is a serious drawback to the traditional math notation: if you didn't come up along one specific educational pathway, it seems to be effectively impossible to work your way in and figure out what any of it means. You can't pronounce any of it, you can't look it up; even if you can work out the names of the symbols, they often mean different things in different contexts. It is a mess.
For many years now, the way I have ingested CS papers is to read the introduction closely, getting my head around the concept, then bail out once the inscrutable symbols show up and go find an actual implementation in some real, documented, parseable programming language - any one will do - from which I can readily infer what the rest of the paper was supposed to mean.
Even in our own field, Computer Science, there are too many confusing cases: Knuth uses |S| to mean the cardinality of set S, |f| to be the number of solutions when f is a boolean, |x| to be the absolute value of x, |z| to be the absolute value of a complex number, and |a| to be the length of a. All within the same book, TAOCP vol 4A Part 1.
What "the size of" means is different applied to each type of object, and may have to be defined to explain some of them (esp. |f|), but it's common in math that general concepts apply differently to different things, while having some properties in common.
I think the notation is helpful rather than confusing because "the size of" carries with it some intuitive connotations which are common to each of those examples.
tldr; it’s tedious reading those proofs. And it’s laborious to write them. Such labour limits the thoughts one can have. Once algebra has solidified there was an explosion in the pace and depth of mathematics.
The symbols are there for a good reason.
In fact, it’s pretty common for math students to want to use only symbols at some point. What they write becomes unintelligible to everyone else (and maybe even themselves) and at some point they (usually) wise up.
What does that mean for code that is being developed out in the open? Does it raise the bar for entry? Arguably there's already a bar to entry, which is being able to read English and being able to program in the first place. That there are some parts of the code that say "here be dragons" to the uninitiated who haven't yet Googled the meaning of the unfamiliar words and symbols seems like an entirely reasonable state of the world. If it's sufficiently popular, an explanation article, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root can be made, or an entire site, like http://explainxkcd.com.
There will always be more things to know (just today I learned about thixomolding. The science behind that has its own set of symbols to pick up), some of it will just require additional learning in order to learn.
A solution to the problem if incomprehensibility is to use a plugin to replace the words. I use emacs prettify symbols:
https://emacsredux.com/blog/2014/08/25/a-peek-at-emacs-24-do...
It's nice to be able to concisely document anything mathematical this way, it's also cute to be able to use the box drawing characters
I agree that this is very pretty, but font support is absolutely critical if you're going to do this.
[0]: https://espanso.org/
Does this mean I'm ready to embrace the use of mathematical notation via unicode glyphs in programming? No. I have a math degree and after dozens of university courses on math I've seen a lot of math notation. This notation uses a dizzying number of symbols across various mathematical disciples. LaTeX allows one to use any of 75 distinct kinds of arrows alone! Left, right, doubled, up, down, diagonal to the upper right, looped, long, bidirectional, harpooned, wiggly, maps-to, and so forth. That's just the arrows. Why does LaTeX allow typesetting with so many distinct arrows? Because mathematicians use them as distinct concepts.
I count 160 relational symbols available for use with standard LaTeX: less-than, equal, equivalent, congruent, subset, parallel, similar, approximate, the list goes on and on. See [1].
Mathematicians don't even use these symbols consistently. Consider the ubiquitous lambda, appearing all over in functional programming. Surely, the use of a lower-case greek lambda is prettier than spelling out the word 'lambda', but it may in many contexts not stand for an anonymous function. It's use as a symbol can also mean: wavelength of any wave, number of offspring, radioactive decay constant, occurrence density within a time interval, eigenvalues, charge density, Lagrange multiplier, empty string, and so forth. Wikipedia lists 24 distinct uses for lambda, [2].
Why do mathematicians, engineers, and scientists use so many different symbols? Because they are doing something fundamentally different with them than programmers. They use the symbols as abbreviations that will be understood by their audience, which might be students watching a lecture, readers of a technical article, or even themselves at some time in the future. The context in all of these uses is very different than the context of a program. The program must be precise and unambiguous, and the program may be one hundred times longer than a published math paper. For this reason, spelled out identifiers and keywords using standard ASCII glyphs are wordier and less "pretty" but are far more practical.
[1] https://www.cmor-faculty.rice.edu/~heinken/latex/symbols.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda#:~:text=Lambda%20indica....