sprintf

People have thought of it -- there's probably just not that many applications where sprintf is a bottleneck.

To them a Go-style date formatting string will make more sense than a sprintf one.

It's not really much of an argument, since transforming the sprintf format to Go is a trivial as printing an specific date.

Sometimes I use sprintf just to indicate to readers of the code that the output is not expected to be truncated, but that's probably too cowboy for my own good.

Writing completely secure C is hard, but this code is littered with extremely basic bugs like unchecked sprintf and not sanitizing arguments to system.

Just call snprintf() even in such cases and forget about sprintf().

You can do this in Ruby too, with sprintf.

> Because I've used sprintf a million times before Did you mean strftime?

If % was spelled.sprintf I'd like it more.

Like, it's a basic rule that you should use snprintf instead of sprintf, possibly with exceptions for cases where you're absolutely sure the result fits in the provided buffer, and in this case there is sprintf everywhere and no checks on the input size whatsoever.

If I see a Go programmer import a sprintf library just because he doesn't want to conform to the programming environment, that's going to ruffle some feathers during code review.

IMO as code gets modified by other developers, the table is easier to keep 'safe' since it is clearer that is what it's for, the sprintf and all the other methods don't tend to be in one place - as methods get added, the reflection issue is oft overlooked.

People who say "he could just use sprintf" are missing the point: this lets you use sprintf while writing idiomatic Go.

Creditcard) |> Seq.map (fun p -> sprintf "%s,%s" p.

%s is a straight "devide-by-10-and-subtract" loop while %d are two library calls to the full-blown sprintf.

First: neat, funny ("I can now write Go date format strings...you win this time"), and I follow the "sprintf may be awful but at least I know it" argument.