On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 09:32:15 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

In the case of the string interpolation DIP, from what I remember it was mostly Walter was very adamant on string interpolation being printf compatible.

In the general case, I assume people using printf are mostly GC-phobic, or are just in general writing @nogc code.

Here's the DIP, including the links to the discussion threads: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/rejected/DIP1027.md

I can't be bothered myself to skim through things to pick out examples, but feel free to do so yourself.

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 08:09:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

Are we getting rid of the GC? :D

I never read about any of that here, can you please share the source of this amazing info :)

On Wednesday, 20 October 2021 at 10:50:26 UTC, Tejas wrote:

In the ASP.net team sense.

https://dlang.org/phobos/std_container_array.html

On Monday, 11 October 2021 at 19:15:51 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

Yes, it is cultural debt, that came from a desire to express types such as a 'pointer to a pointer to an int' with a notation for keyboards with a limited set of easily accessible symbols. The cost is quite high, but people are used to. It us equally puzzeling why prople want "&&" instead of "and" or "||" instead of "or". There is no rational explanation, I think people like to feel that they are using something advanced and that a syntax that that is associated with advanced usage makes them feel more skilled? Kinda like fashion...

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 08:42:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

I imagine && and || stem from & and |. You could probably have something like "and" and "band", "or" and "bor" but to me that doesn't seem as comfortable.

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 09:04:16 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:

Adding onto that, a "pineapple on pizza" sort of thing is that some people like to write things like a&b|c instead of a & b | c, the former I don't think is possible with keywords, but is with operators.

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 08:42:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Sorry for all the typos (ipad)...

Anyway cultural impact on syntax is intersting. In the 70s/80s screens were quite limited so it made sense to write more terse code. Quite prevalent for systems work, either low level or scripting. Python did a good job of cleaning up syntax in professional programming, which is a factor in its popularity. I think elitism has a lot to do with fashions in language syntax. Like, even when BASIC would be the best tool for a job, I think many would rather not use it as it would imply being a less sophisticated programmer...

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 09:04:16 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:

That was why C used it, but it leads to uneccessary problems with typos, too many meanings for the symbols and overall less legible code.

In terms of modelling, "&&" is used for reasoning about control flow and "&" is used for low level trickery. There is no usabilty advantage in mixing those levels visually. Also, the semantics are different as "&&" shortcuts, a point newbies tend to overlook...

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 08:42:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Because boolean algebra was already a thing and it was symbolic in nature. So making it wordy would probably seem a bit odd, maybe childish to some people. It'd be like writing arithmetic expressions like this...

1 plus 1 equals 2

If you can understand why people wouldn't want to write arithmetic expressions like that, surely you can understand why some people wouldn't want wordy boolean expressions?

On Sunday, 24 October 2021 at 10:21:22 UTC, claptrap wrote:

This might be a good reason actually.

Coming from logic I at first thought that of course "or" would be ∨ and "and" would be ∧ etc, but then, where are those signs on my keyboard 😭

(I actually have an apl keyboard but that's another thing)

So made sense in a way to reuse & and | since they are pretty close as alternative representations, ie ∥ VS || for example.