String Interpolation

[Imperatorn]

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 15:01:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 10/27/23 16:35, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 13:00:37 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 10/26/23 19:38, Imperatorn wrote:
>>>>>
> You conduct yourself as if there was some group of powerful 
> stakeholders called "users" with a uniform and informed opinion 
> on this matter that elected you as a representative.
>

Yes, because there, is? Everything except that I have been 
elected.

Have you even tried opening a browser and checking? And if you 
don't have access to the world wide web then go to a library, and 
if there is no library nearby, go outside and talk to someone, 
anyone. Any developer should do basically.

It's unsettling how little work anyone want to do, just search 
for yourself. It takes 30 minutes to get a complete picture of 
the current state in all major languages having string 
interpolation.

Do we have to start at the bottom of the entire logical chain for 
it to become obvious?

0. The world exists ✓
1. There are users ✓
2. Some of them write programs ✓
3. Many of the programs written in the last decade have string 
interpolation ✓
4. All of them can give you a string without the user having to 
do anything ✓

Now the question becomes:
Do you care about those users or not?

If not, then ok, just say so? I would respect that. But don't be 
surprised when they think you're doing something that feels 
unnatural to them. Like using a door, flipping a switch or 
whatever you do every day. If suddenly someone thought it would 
be a splendid idea to make you scream for 30 seconds straight to 
make the light bulb turn on, great, do that. But don't try force 
convince the rest of the world that your borderline psychotic 
behavior would be "normal" and that it would be offensive to 
question the design.

>
>> That basically what the current implementation does.
>
> No, that's not true.

You just say "no" without providing any evidence. Why? Is itsome 
kind of Halloween thing

> Sometimes there is a better solution.

Here you are actually correct and have a point. There might be 
better solutions. And D might be the first to show that.

But think of it in terms of probability.

Is it more probable that we, or the rest of the world, are wrong?

> I am not surprised, just disappointed at the quality of 
> discourse.

Your subjective view of the quality of discourse is of course 
important, but it does not change any of the facts provided.