The difference I find most comely about digital versus analogue is that the analogue is maxed out where it needs to be performance wise. This means it will just perform and produce, instead of counting up and seeing how much it can do. This also reminds me of biology, where the body is made of nerves and attaches these to organs and so forth - a mix between 'digital' and something else, you could say?
Then, the best way to have a computer work without 'digital limits' would be to examine the c.p.u? This would see the c.p.u, instead of counting up to eight and multiples of eight, where they stack them as one on switch, counting each one up and adding them, simply count another way, or, activate the devices by another means, of course.
This could maybe be done by 'vocabulary.' Each key stroke, as a programmer, could be made by charge, where each key stroke could represent a character, with a actual language being used to program, following from my "languages" thread. This would not be understood by the computer, as it never is actually understood, but rather just feed back the program you are making.
Circuitry for this could be made simpler and slicker by observing it only serves about ten thousand words in a dictionary, for feedback, basic grammar rules, mathematics, science, colours and shapes and sounds. This would be where each device is keyed to 'produce each effect.'