I really think it&#x27;s awesome that Sean is experimenting here and there&#x27;s lots of good ideas. I disagree with one idea here, which I&#x27;ve also seen advocated in places like the Hasklig font.<p>One of the first things that many people who get into code typography try to &quot;fix&quot; is using the &quot;real&quot; mathematical symbols for the various operators that programming languages represent in ASCII. Using × instead of `star` (ugh, no way to escape an asterisk in HN&#x27;s shitty markup format), ÷ instead of &#x2F;, etc.<p>This is based on the assumption that the math notation is superior. Maybe because it&#x27;s older? Maybe because it&#x27;s used in mathematical papers and texts? Maybe because they assume readers are more familiar with that, or maybe new programmers? Maybe just because of the general cachet of &quot;correctness&quot; that math carries with it[1].<p>I&#x27;m not sure why, but either way, I disagree with this assumption. I do admit that a new programmer has likely seen more × than `star`, but I think that&#x27;s a small hurdle. Certainly, at this point in <i>my</i> life, I&#x27;ve seen != a hell of a lot more often than I&#x27;ve seen ≠. != <i>is</i> the canonical symbol for &quot;not equals&quot; in my mind.<p>Sticking with the ASCII representation does have one real thing going for it: it visually represents the way you type it. If I was a brand new programmer coming to a program using Sean&#x27;s UI, I might be able to <i>read</i> the ≥· a little more easily (though the dot would confuse me), but I wouldn&#x27;t know how to <i>produce</i> it.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;435&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;xkcd.com&#x2F;435&#x2F;</a>