Hacker News Reader

My personal anecdatal arguement against "Hard to parse for humans" is... I actually really like generics residing within <>. It's actually harder for me to read generics denoted otherwise (D uses parentheses)

As for the last paragraph, I'd implore language implementors to continue using < > lest we get that awfully ambigous nonsense.

View on HN

Scala uses brackets for generics and parens for array accesses. It works nicely, I think.

The primary argument against < and > as generic brackets is that the ambiguity can make for some confusing error messages. It also prevents you from pre-matching your braces before the parsing phase (a technique that enhances error recovery).

Maybe it's my bias of having been introduced to parameterized types via C++'s template mechanism, but I find that <> looks natural to me and Scala's use of square brackets feels off. In general, I find myself preferring C-derived syntax.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com