Sigils are underappreciated (2022)
I think there&#x27;s a piece of insight missing from the author&#x27;s analysis of non-programmatic sigils. To wit, the sigils are <i>only</i> valuable when <i>both parties deeply understand the information that the sigil is trying to convey</i>. The &quot;$framework at $dayjob&quot; example illustrates this point. Programmers familiar with the use of sigils to indicate variables intrinsically grok this phrase, but it looks like gobbledygook to non-programmers. The email inbox example is similar. (I&#x27;d argue the hashtag&#x2F;@-symbol example is a bit more complicated, because those symbols service important UX functions.)<p>I think this insight crystalizes the trade-off. I agree with the author that sigils are <i>a</i> powerful way of communicating useful information in a concise fashion. But does their inscrutability to non-expert users justify their existence? I&#x27;d argue it usually doesn&#x27;t. Whenever I&#x27;ve had to pick up a language that uses a lot of sigils (or even just had to read source code in one of those languages if I don&#x27;t use it daily), I always find the sigils require a bit of extra mental effort to process. It seems like other languages manage to express meaning in a way that is less burdensome to non-experts.