Same way you type everything else - by pressing a button combination that corresponds to the symbol in your layout. Or by using an app that does it without changing the layout. Like your editor could insert → when you type fn () -> {}
Or you'd simply not type it and continue to use ->
> Or I need to get out a special keyboard per language?
No, your regular keyboard will work fine for any language.
> Unicode is not there for you to necessarily use the whole thing
The suggestion was about literally 1 char (maybe implicitly about a dozen more), why did you jump to the millions from "the whole thing"???
But I don't have a button that corresponds to "unicode arrow" and I don't particularly want one. I have only 10 digits and they're all accounted for with ubiquitous, regular keyboards that have been around for decades.
Having to use some app that converts two characters inserted in sequence into the correct character is a terrible idea. It makes me think of the Dvorak trend among geeks. I very nearly learnt Dvorak myself, but then a wise elder dissuaded me, reminding me how amazing it is to be able to type fast on any keyboard you come across, even if it might only be 90% of your theoretical maximum on the perfect keyboard. Sometimes local optima are good enough.
> But I don't have a button that corresponds to "unicode arrow"
You mean the label: well, take out your favorite marker and draw one on the side! But also, you don't have labels that correspond to these standard Mac layout symbols https://i.sstatic.net/ht0Tg.png
So? Should it be removed?
> ubiquitous, regular keyboards that have been around for decades.
All poorly designed, most even acknowledge that by adding an extra set of numbers at the side because the default numeric (and symbolic) row is so bad. Why is the 'why bother improve the awfulness' a great attitude?
> but then a wise elder dissuaded me, reminding me how amazing it is to be able to type fast on any keyboard you come across
There is nothing wise here, it's a bog standard rejection of any improvement. First of, you could still train yourself to use both. Second, if you're only using your own keyboards 99.9% of the time, there is nothing amazing about not being slowed down in those tiny percent of typing cases. Also, it's of course not literally `any` keyboard you come, that's such a myopic view - plenty of countries have different non-qwerty default layouts, so you wouldn't be able to enjoy your qwerty speed there
> only be 90% of your theoretical maximum on the perfect keyboard
What if it's 10% that will make you disabled in 20 years? After all, "speed" isn't the only factor here. Any "wise" man could appreciate the broader ergonomic implications...
> It's never "just one more".
If only you didn't cut off the quote you could've read "implicitly about a dozen more", but the most important part is the last that you failed to address about the millions
Yes the keyboard layouts we have nowadays are actually suboptimal for touch typing, but nobody has ever managed to change them on a global scale.
So why would one change the keyboard layouts just because somebody needs an arrow for programming? This is such a niche use case that it will never happen.
Also many programmers will not want to use the unicode arrow instead of ->, thats a personal choice and nothing else.
It would also be fatal to retrofit old languages like this since it would just create confusion for little benefit.
> This is such a niche use case that it will never happen.
How do you square this with the simple fact that it has already happened? And just as simple of a forecast: it will continue to happen.
> Also many programmers will not want to use the unicode arrow instead of ->, thats a personal choice and nothing else.
So what? Other programmers will.
But I don't get your general point - are you saying that the only change worth doing is the one that has happened globally in the past? Like, currently some popular languages support "unicode letter" for identifiers, which means it includes various nonsense like dead languages from thousands of years ago (but doesn't include much more used stuff just because the designers outsourced all their thinking to some Unicode Annex). Do you want to remove all that for consistenty with the fact that no one will ever use those symbols in function names?
> It would also be fatal to retrofit old languages like this since it would just create confusion for little benefit.
Could you link to the death certificate of the old language called C since this compiles despite no one having 𓀄𓀂 in their keyboard layout
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int var𓀄𓀂 = 2;
printf("%d\n", var𓀄𓀂 );
return 0;
}
You are talking about changing arrows to unicode arrows.
These arrow symbols are NOT identifiers but a specific syntax used in these C type languages, and then you give examples of identifiers being able to be specified in unicode.
This is not the same thing, so i have to assume that you are confused here.
Also, my point is that keyboard layouts are so ingrained that they will never change, and even if they change, it wouldnt be for some niche use like using unicode arrows.
So what? How is that relevant to your argument about fatal confusion? Why is confusion in supporting var𓀄 ok, but confusion supporting → in addition to -> suddenly fatal???
> they will never change
What's the point of this point, what does it address in this conversation? Who is talking about mandatory or even necessary global layout changes? Did you miss one of the alternatives I mentioned that allows changing nothing on your input side by letting your editor auto-substitute?
Same way you type everything else - by pressing a button combination that corresponds to the symbol in your layout. Or by using an app that does it without changing the layout. Like your editor could insert → when you type fn () -> {} Or you'd simply not type it and continue to use ->
> Or I need to get out a special keyboard per language?
No, your regular keyboard will work fine for any language.
> Unicode is not there for you to necessarily use the whole thing
The suggestion was about literally 1 char (maybe implicitly about a dozen more), why did you jump to the millions from "the whole thing"???