[nullstyle]

> then it can be shown as part of the rendering of the program on a screen

I disagree with this, and can most easily express my disagreement by pointing out that people look at code with a diversity of programs: From simple text editors with few affordances to convey a programs meaning apart from the plain text like notepad and pico all the way up to the full IDEs that can do automatic refactoring and structured editing like the Jet Brains suite, Emacs+Paredit, or the clearly ever-superior Visual Interdev 6.

If people view code through a diversity of programs, then code's on-disk form matters, IMO.

[oalae5niMiel7qu]

People's choice of editor is influenced by what they're editing. For example, virtually every Lisp programmer uses Emacs, even though there are many alternatives out there, including VS Code plugins. And virtually every Java programmer uses a JetBrains IDE or something similar. I'd probably install an IDE if I had to work on a Java codebase. Editing with a diversity of programs isn't universal.

[lisper]

Sure, but nothing stops you from looking at the raw code. Consider looking at compiled code. You can always hexdump the object file, but have a disassembly helps a lot.