Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme
aleaxit at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 11 18:59:56 CEST 2003
Jon S. Anthony wrote:
> bombs waiting to go off since they have long standing prior meanins
> not in any way associated with this type of operation. OTOH, if you
> really wanted them, you could define them.
Is it a good thing that you can define "bombs waiting to go off"?
>> Python's reply "There should be one-- and preferably only one --
>> obvious way to do it."
> This then is probably the best reason to _not_ use Python for anything
> other than the trivial. It has long been known in problem solving
> (not just computation) that multiple ways of attacking a problem, and
> shifting among those ways, tends to yield the the better solutions.
One, and preferably only one, of those ways should be the obvious one,
i.e., the best solution. There will always be others -- hopefully they'll
be clearly enough inferior to the best one, that you won't have to waste
too much time considering and rejecting them. But the obvious one
"may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch".
The worst case for productivity is probably when two _perfectly
equivalent_ ways exist. Buridan's ass notoriously starved to death in
just such a worst-case situation; groups of programmers may not go
quite as far, but are sure to waste lots of time & energy deciding.
More information about the Python-list