I'd still prefer honest-to-goodness string interpolation. Formatting functions with positional placeholders need a linter to be kept (vaguely) maintainable, and I suspect that formatting functions with named placeholders would be difficult to make acceptably ergonomic or performant in Java.

> I suspect that formatting functions with named placeholders would be difficult to make acceptably ergonomic or performant in Java

yamlp performs string interpolation from YAML files:

https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/yamlp/

I reuse my library in my text editor:

https://github.com/DaveJarvis/scrivenvar/

The text editor can interpolate strings in a variety of contexts (such as Markdown, R Markdown, XML, and R XML documents):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_dFd6UhdV8

As far as I can tell, there is no performance degradation from the recursive interpolation; the editor reads, interpolates key/value pairs, and substitutes the resulting values into R Markdown documents riddled with up to a thousand simple formulas in about 600 milliseconds (on my desktop computer).

Also, the editor provides a way to maintain the interpolated variables in a tree-like view:

https://github.com/DaveJarvis/scrivenvar/blob/master/README....

The substituted values appear in the preview pane in their final form. This is all real-time and pure Java.

Which one is easier to mess up and harder to debug afterwards?

A. "${label1} ${label2} ${label3} .... ${label 400}"

B. "%s %s %s ... %s".formatted(label1, label2, label23, ... label400) // Ooops, typo!

For the particular typo you gave, it seems to me to be equally likely with either method.

I'll admit it wasn't the best example.

Here, have another one:

I want to have a string with this content:

"Fluffy Nero Polly<random text> ... <random text> Trexxie"

Which one is easier to figure out and debug?

A. "${cat} ${dog} ${bird} <random text> ... <random text> ${dinosaur}"

B "%s %s %s <random text> ... <random text> %s".formatted(dog, giraffe, dinosaur, ..., cat).

Maybe A, but not (IMO) dramatically so. But shouldn't A actually be "${cat} ${dog} ${giraffe} <random text> ... <random text> ${dinosaur}"? That makes it closer in difficulty to B.

To me, the difference shows up more with this scenario:

A: "${v1} ${v2} ${v3} ${v4}"

B1: "%s %s %s %s".formatted(v1, v2, v3)

B2: "%s %s %s %s".formatted(v1, v2, v3, v4, v5)

B3: "%s %s %s".formatted(v1, v2, v3, v4)

A does what you tell it, whether it's wrong or right. B has a chance of warning you that the argument list and the format specifier don't match. On the other hand, B gives you two things that have to be kept in sync with each other, and A can't get out of sync, since there's only one thing.

So: Less of a chance to make the error, or more of a chance to catch it. Which is better? I lean toward A, but I will admit that it seems subjective.

> Less of a chance to make the error, or more of a chance to catch it.

B only catches mistakes in the case that the number of parameters doesn't match the number of placeholders, which isn't even possible with A. If the string you built isn't correct, that's on you in either case, and should be immediately obvious by looking at the output. So in that sense, interpolation is strictly better than `formatted` at dealing with potential mistakes.

Go doesn't have interpolated strings but printf / sprintf and co, and its compiler will warn and error if your arguments do not line up or have the wrong type.

I mean it's not ideal, but sprintf and co are only intended for relatively short text (like logging), if you have any more, use a templating language instead. Plenty of those in Java as well (JSP, Velocity, etc).

This was already there, and is much less user-friendly than string interpolation, because it's easy to mess up order