Python becoming less Lisp-like
jerf at jerf.org
Wed Mar 16 21:56:23 CET 2005
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:35:57 -0600, Mike Meyer wrote:
> The real problem is that newbies won't know which features are "meta"
> features best left to experts, and which features are ok for everyday
> programmers to use.
> We recently saw a thread (couldn't find it in google groups) where
> some was trying to write decorators that would add a variable to a
> functions local namespace. When they actually stated the problem, it
> was a problem trivially solved by inheriting behavior, and that OO
> solution was what the OP finally adopted. But most of a week got
> wasted chasing a "solution" that should never have been investigated
> in the first place.
This isn't a new problem, and I'm not convinced it even makes it worse.
We (speaking broadly) have had to ask "No, what is it you are trying to
*do*?" for a long time. Whether the 'newbie' is reaching for decorators to
add a variable, trying to use lambdas to print, or trying to use XML-RPC
to make calls to local functions, the newbie who is going to ask "How do I
do this wrong thing?" isn't going to be affected either way by the
addition or removal of metaclasses, or much of anything else.
Is this arguable? Yes, absolutely, and I think none of us have the data
to prove this one way or the other. But a priori it is not obvious that
adding a few more possible mistakes to the already effectively infinite
set of them is necessary going to trap anybody who wasn't going to get
trapped on something else.
More information about the Python-list