>>18
the way I interpreted his post was as an answer to the question "what good are strings". Therefor "you've never had to use sequences of numbers?" seemed to me as if he was suggesting, "strings are good for representing sequences of numbers". As for the format, it was an arbitrary decision and could have been represented in a different manner.
And just for the record, I believe that having strings by an array(or list) of numbers a la C (arguably) and erlang, instead of having a separate character type is stupid.