I think the tone of this post is insufferable, and the arguments have little merit presented this way.
The alternative suggested is also non ideal, since array declaration/indexing is semantically different than a function call, not all languages have method calls, not all languages have postfix method calls, I can think of a few ways to break that syntax (what if the type has a call operator and indexing operator?), and it is hypocritical.
The problem with <> is that they are used elsewhere. If you use [] by sacrificing arrays, () will cause problems because they're used elsewhere.
The lowest friction solution would be to introduce a new two character bracket. How about <: or :>? (: :)? I don't know but writing about it in that tone won't get anyone to do something different.
The alternative suggested is also non ideal, since array declaration/indexing is semantically different than a function call, not all languages have method calls, not all languages have postfix method calls, I can think of a few ways to break that syntax (what if the type has a call operator and indexing operator?), and it is hypocritical.
The problem with <> is that they are used elsewhere. If you use [] by sacrificing arrays, () will cause problems because they're used elsewhere.
The lowest friction solution would be to introduce a new two character bracket. How about <: or :>? (: :)? I don't know but writing about it in that tone won't get anyone to do something different.