> This has nothing to do with representation or input via text

It does, it's an extension of the reality that, after so many decades, we are still typing words on a text editor.  In other words, my comment isn't so much about the mechanics and editors that are available as much as the fact that the way we communicate and define the computational solution of problems (be it to other humans or the machine that will execute the instructions) is through typing text into some kind of a text editor. 

When I say "text" I mean "a through z, numbers and a few symbols that were found on mechanical typewriters in the 1960's".  My shorthand for that is ASCII, which isn't quite accurate in that the set symbols contained in the sets where the most significant bits are "000" and "001" (7 bit ASCII) are not used other than CR, LF and HT. 

So, for the most part, programming, for the last 60 years or so --over half a century-- has been limited to the characters and symbols found on a 60 year old typewriter.

For some reason this evokes the lyrics from a Pink Floyd song, "Got thirteen channels of sh** on the T.V. to choose from".  The advances in computation since the 1960's have been immense, and yet we pretend that it is OK to limit ourselves to a 60 year old keyboard in describing and programming the next generation of AI systems that will reach unimaginable levels of complexity, power and capabilities.  

As I have mentioned in another comment, having had this experience, I fully understand how people who do not have the benefit of having communicated with computers, not just symbolically, but through a very different paradigm as well, simply cannot see what I am describing.  It's hard to find an analogy that can easily represent this without some common shared perspective.  I found that music can be that tool.  Of course, that requires classical training at a level sufficient enough to, for example, read and "see" the music when presented with a score.

Now, it's easy to say "I can do that" when presented with something like this and maybe have a rudimentary understanding of it:


It is something quite different when presented with something like this, without a "play" button, even if annotated:


I have found that trying to explain the value of true notation to people who lack the experience and training is always a losing proposition.  I'm already regretting having started this thread, simply because I know how this works.  Frankly, it's almost like trying to engage with a religious person while trying to discuss the lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings.  They "know" what they "know" and it is a very rare case that someone is actually going to get out of that box and comprehend what you are saying.

BTW, there are some interesting efforts out there, like this:


Once you dig into these truly interesting examples you end-up discovering that notation still has a significant edge.