SAL at Microsoft

[Walter Bright]

bearophile wrote:
> Walter:
> 
>> Won't implement, see rationale http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4458#c6
> 
> In the same place I have written good answers to your problems.

There's no technical reason why writef should be slower than printf, adding 
language features to compensate is the wrong way to fix that.

Similarly, template bloat is a language implementation issue that needs 
eventually to be addressed. Having a kludgy language feature that only addresses 
printf is the wrong fix.

As for the rest, having specific compiler support for printf makes for sad 
sister support for anything else.