I don't think there are developers who find it unreadable once they know the logic of that operator. However, if you don't know the rules, then it looks like black magic.
In large software developments, consistency beats convenience almost all the time. You can somewhat easily add another developer, if the notation rules are consistent. Whereas clever notational convenience costs for every developer you add to the project. Giving people a choice means you have yet another section in your style guide to understand and maintain. The deeper observation is that in a language with two syntactic classes, statements and expressions, you can opt to have an if-like evaluation in the expression class, or you can omit it. Go does the latter, where C does the former. Of course, you can also define your language with a single syntactic class. In that case, the above example can be written let color = if temperature > 80 then "red" else "green" in ... This style is used in a large selection of languages, which people often call "functional languages". Though the lines of when something fits into the moniker is somewhat blurry. On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 4:08 PM Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there really developers that find this unreadable? > > color := temperature > 80 ? “red” : “green” > > I know what you are going to say. People will nest them. But even nested > usage can be readable when formatted nicely with one condition per line. > Another alternative is to allow only unnested ternaries. > > R. Mark Volkmann > Object Computing, Inc. > > > On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:48 PM L Godioleskky <lgod...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> The lack of a Go ternary operator is at odds with Go's major theme of > clean and easy to read syntax. Those who choose not to use the ternary > operator can always resort back to Go's current 'if -else' or 'case' > syntax. So Go syntax suffers no negative impact by adding the ternary op to > its syntax list. Those opposed to the ternary op should not be allowed to > deny it use other Go programmers, that consider it useful. > > > > That's backwards. Those who has to read the code can no more chose not > > to decrypt the unreadable 4-level nested ternary operations instead of > > 5 if statements. > > > > And to follow on your "logic". If you add to Go even just 10% of what > > people consider useful, it will become a new C++, only much worse. And > > again by your very logic. Why we, that haven't chosen to code in C++ > > in the first place, would be denied by others to use Go, when those > > others have C++ already at hand? > > > > Let everyone use the language he/she likes. Why ruin it for others > > instead of that by forcing Go to become the same as his/her other > > favorite language? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- J. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAGrdgiVQkaDS%2B%3D%2BcSCRFGgK1bpaDJFy6fVAZr5xpMVxv%3D6PNhg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
