I come to praise .join, not to bury it...
cfelling at iae.nl
Fri Mar 16 01:29:01 CET 2001
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Garry Hodgson" <garry at sage.att.com> wrote in message
> news:3AAF7E47.294617E1 at sage.att.com...
>> don't be too quick to write off Aesthetics. it's a significant
>> part of what attracted me to python (i'd seen enough curly braces
>> and semicolons to last me a lifetime). avoiding scaring off newbies
>> until they've had time to appreciate other virtues is not a Bad Thing.
> And then again, the _appearance_ that too much emphasis
> was being placed on syntax-sugary issues kept me *AWAY*
> from Python for longer than it should have -- sure, sure,
> I could save some punctuation, but, *WHAT DID I CARE*?!
> Good thing (for me) that I eventually looked beyond the
> pretty face, of course:-). But, appearing to care about
> looks more than about substance _is_ going to keep away
Just to get this straithened out:
Python is not about Good Looks, it's about *Readability*
But just like with Page Layout Design and Font Design the initiated
and experienced ones can tell just by the looks of something whether
it scores high on readability. Unfortunately the masses when given
the opportunity --maybe having heard of the arguments of those wise
ones-- think they can do the same which results in horrors when
applied to Page Layout and Font Design as is shown by so many a
So the fun thing is that Aestethics is a very bad guide in general,
but a highly precise although unformal one once one has gotten the
propper education (okee, and even then only for the gifted ones:)
And Aesthethics was about all they had some years ago in the above
mentioned fields, and still what they produced is highly respected.
To exagerate this, there was a time they even didn't know that it was
readability they were after, and yet their keen and seasoned sence of
aesthetics guided them to designs that even today stand as landmarks
of good design (with readability as a prime criterea).
> some people (just as it is going to attract others), so,
> it's not a clear "win" either way, even if you just frame
> it as a popularity-race. Focus on *substance*, on the
but if you get too blinded by this substance thing, you might easily
overlook that in the end you have to weight things and there again the
seasoned sense of aesthetics of the gifted ones is what makes the
> other hand, is going to be a win for all who _are_ involved
> with Python -- not just those who happen to be on the
> "I like it" side vs the "I like it not" one (and I've
> never seen any argument about _aesthetics_ [as opposed to
I hope you'll see the argument in the above:)
> _usability_ -- human-factors studies DO have a substantial
> side too:-)] that doesn't boil down to such trifles]).
More information about the Python-list