[TUHS] Re: [TULSA] Re: python

[Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>]

On 2023-08-03 19:51, John Cowan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> But if speed is not a problem, I'd keep the good ol' syntax that
> 
> everybody knows.  No need to make everybody learn a "cool" new print
>> function, that probably won't be as tunable as printf(3) is.
>>
>>
> By that argument, there would be no C, only Algol 68 and PL/I, or subsets
> of them.
> 

I didn't claim that there's never a reason to invent new syntax.  My claim
was rather that in this case, there isn't.

-  printf(3) is more powerful than any other existing formatting function
   that I know of any language --I'm still curious of what's the equivalent
   of "%+'0#8.5f" in other formatting functions--.

-  It is also reasonably fast (at least for such a highly-customizable
   formatting function), and I'd like to see any system beat that while
   keeping the customizability.

-  It is type-safe, with the right tools.

I can understand the need for less-customizable faster formatting functions
for very-high-performance programs, and std::format may fit well there.  But
other than that, I don't see a reason to invent so many different formatting
functions.  Of course, one may do that just for fun, in which case I applaud
that.  But printf(3) is superior to them, IMO.

Alex