I ventured out to better read Qiskit code, and came back with this fun idea of 2D expressions

in the same spirit, checkout Orca: https://100r.co/site/orca.html

It is used to compose songs. You can see the demo in the linked page.

Soon we have an IDE that works in 3D. So, not only do you have to look left-right, then top-bottom, but also before, and behind. That's scaling code! You write in 3D now.

Or, you stick to oldschool old people. Keep things simple.

"All this time we’ve been writing expressions in 1D space, but what happens when we unlock an extra dimension?"

Text is a serialization of an n-dimensional work space. "N-dimensional" doesn't have a formal definition I'm aware of but the major characteristic of it is that a new dimension can pop up anywhere. If you feel like you want to double-click on that, you can see my earlier comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35096647

A conventional textual language can represent everything mentioned there, whereas 2D layouts struggle almost immediately to represent things that textual layouts represent quite easily.

It can still be a useful "see the world differently" exercise, but it's the opposite of "freeing your mind"... it's stepping into a fairly small subset of functionality, albeit an unconventional one, and seeing what you can still manage to do even so. Rather than "unlocking a new dimension" it's actually throwing away n-2 of them. The experience of using this for any period of time would reveal this, as it would be a constant struggle to represent even very simple algorithms in this format.

I post this mostly because of the "familiarity breeds contempt" effect that programmers seem to get hit with for text. There is a reason we use text and it's not lack of imagination or being stuck in our ways... it is actually an incredibly rich and powerful format that poses a serious challenge for any alternative to overcome because of the astonishing combination of compactness combined with representational power.