[Python-ideas] List Revolution

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sat Sep 10 17:13:36 CEST 2011

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Matt Joiner <anacrolix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well it makes complete sense to me. Furthermore, Python even properly
> supports the style of conditional he uses. a <= b < c IS a great way
> to do things. 0 based indexing IS right for computing. Not sure if
> you're trolling or I'm not counter-trolling... -.-
> EWD is the man. Dutch programmers in decades to come have a lot to live up to.

I think I'm doing okay. :-)

(And to those taking the thread seriously: this is all in jest. We
won't change the indexing base. The idea is so preposterous that the
only kind of response possible is to laugh with it.)


> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Carl Matthew Johnson
> <cmjohnson.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Matt Joiner wrote:
>>> Recommended reading:
>>> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html
>> The reasoning in this letter is so terrible. Why do people quote this whenever this comes up? "We should start lists at 0 because when writing for-loops the <= look goofy otherwise." Why on earth should Pythonistas care what the for-loops are like when we only have for-each loops! It's crazy.
>> Look, EWD was a good computer scientist (=MATHEMATICIAN), but he was terrible when it comes to the ART of programming language design. There's no reason to think that being a good mathematician would make one also good at designing a user interface, and that's what a programming language is--a user interface for highly advanced users. Other than "Go To Considered Harmful" everything I've read of his about programming has been wrong. (Correctness proofs, really?) And much of that wrongness stems from EWD's false belief that programming should be the same as math.
>> Now, as it happens, I don't think we should change to using 1 (although I do note that Lua gets along fine with it). But the reason not to change is because 0 is a well entrenched standard so most programmers are more used to it than to 1. In other words, it's the standard because in UI design you stick with what your users will expect. It has nothing to do with some arcane mathematician's gobbledygook writings about greater than and less than signs. Programming language design is the art of making something that helps humans work more efficiently, not some pure mathematics descended from Platonic heaven.
>> Sorry to rant, but that article always comes up and so I have grudge against EWD.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-ideas mailing list
>> Python-ideas at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list