On another note, anything with "->" is just painful to write, same thing with the (in his proposal) ":_" instead of "=" for function arguments. Just annoying.
template<typename T>
void hello(T msg) {
std::cout << "Hello " << msg << "\n";
}
hello: (msg: _) = {
std::cout << "Hello " << msg << "\n";
}
void hello(auto msg){
...
}
As for -> being painful to write - that's obviously subjective, but more importantly, given that it's the operator you use to access members via pointer-like things (including smart pointers and iterators), it's already pervasive in C++.
Would you people object to ':' for assign and single '=' for equality ?
int i:42
if i=42 print "ok"Practically speaking I find : to be challenging to quickly scan out of source visually. In golang this objection is muted slightly because struct initialization usually ends up being clearly indented by the formatter.
int i = 0; // pretty
i : int = 0; // ugly
i will stick to c++03 thank u very much.
Something like "i: int" is superior (at least in Scala), because the type annotation is optional. You can drop it, and just say "val i = 42". I believe it simplifies the parser as well.
There is a reason many modern languages are adopting the style.
i: int 0 = ;
int x = 0 "There is an integer x with value 0"
x: int = 0 "x is an integer with value 0"
x: int 0 = "x is an integer that is zero valued"
The last one is awkward, the first one is harder to read.
int i; // i is a local int
int i(); // i is a global function returning an int
int i(0); // i is a local int initialized to 0.
It can actually get worse, to the point where it's impossible to tell whether a given line of code is a declaration or not. E.g. "a<b>c" can be a declaration "a<b> c", or it can be an expression "((a < b) > c)", depending on what "a" is, exactly. This can be taken to 11 with templates:
template<size_t N = sizeof(void*)> struct a {
template<int> struct b {};
};
template<> struct a<sizeof(int)> {
enum { b };
};
enum { c, d };
a::b<c>d;
syntax "beauty" is just a matter of how used to it you are (excl brainfuck ofcourse). Admitting this, is quite a big present one can give to him/her self.
Been using Scala for 7 years, and it has never even occurred to me this was a "burden".
Think of it like font kerning. Some people notice it, some don't, but most people prefer good kerning even if they never think about it.
Does `{` not require shift on your keyboard?
You misread my comment. I'm talking about cases where existing prevalent syntax for that construct does NOT already require holding Shift. Python is better in this respect since ":" requires fewer presses of Shift than "{" or "}". This is not the case when you go from "int x = 1;" to "x: int = 1;".
Moreover, the inconvenience of going from 1 Shift to 2 is not the same as the burden of going from 0 to 1. Especially because you can often combine the 2 into 1 without releasing the modifier key in between.
And furthermore, variable declarations are far more common than class or function declarations, so you can't weight them equally.
Most programmers I know use native+US layouts (like you), a minority always uses US (like me), almost nobody uses a native layout to code.
What I would do is this:
- Replace them with a single quote -> E' instead of È or É and so on.
- Ignore all uncommon marks.
In most contexts, it is perfectly acceptable to do that. A native speaker would understand without giving it a second thought or considering it impolite. I write emails to my boss like that.
If I had to make something meant for the public (say a UI, or a document), then I'd switch to the Italian layout for that purpose only and then go back to the US one.
if (cond) { } requires 4 presses of Shift (or 2, if you combine them).
if cond: foo requires 1 press of Shift.
I'm not sure what part of my comment makes you believe that I think the latter comes out worse than the former. If anything, the fewer keypresses probably strongly helped Python's success without people necessarily realizing it. Moreover, this might very well be one thing hindering more widespread adoption of Python's type annotations.
You also need to consider how common each construct is. A class declaration requiring 20 excessive keystrokes is not necessarily worse than a variable declaration requiring 1 excessive keystroke.
Most of the time you spend thinking about what you should be typing.
So optimizing for the number of keystrokes is optimizing for the wrong metrics
Also consider this: lots of hugely frequent characters and symbols that don't require SHIFT in EN-US keyboards do in other keyboards layouts, for example Spanish. So this cannot be a consideration, at least not a major one.
It's kind of weird to see you assert that with no attempt to establish its truth when Scala is something like... the ~20th most popular language? Whereas Python, C, C++, Java, VB, C#, etc. are right at the top. So either this is one of the (obviously many) factors hindering wider adoption of Scala, in which case the relative popularity is entirely consistent with this, or it isn't a factor, in which case the it would make sense to present at least some evidence to the contrary given that your assertion goes against the popularity rankings.
> Also consider this: lots of hugely frequent characters and symbols that don't require SHIFT in EN-US keyboards do in other keyboards layouts, for example Spanish. So this cannot be a consideration, at least not a major one.
I'm pretty sure the popularity of {most software technologies} outside the US and inside the US are very far from being independent variables.
The barrier to adoption of Scala has to do its functional programming side, as well as its complex libraries and types.
Kotlin also uses ": type" syntax, by the way. As does Python!
> I'm pretty sure the popularity of {most software technologies} outside the US and inside the US are very far from being independent variables.
It's hard to understand your point. Are you arguing that programming languages are less popular outside the US? Or "most software technologies"?
So let's sum it up: SHIFT concerns are very minor in comparison to other programming language ergonomics (in which need I remind you, C++ never fared very well), and the ": type" syntax is very common and mainstream in programming languages, with no hindrance to adoption.