Named code blockes

[Steve Holden]

"Douglas Alan" <nessus at mit.edu> wrote ...
> "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Two interestingly embricated claims.  I do see the interest in
> > separate, Python-like languages such as PyHTML -- domain specific
> > and all.  But there seems to be an underlying hypothesis here that
> > it's best to do EVERYTHING in ONE language, including implementing
> > other ones on top of it.
>
> And a wonderful hypothesis it is.
>
I don't agree.

> By doing so, you lower the barier to allowing people to accomplish
> what they want to accomplish.  Isn't that what a high-level language
> is all about?
>
Yes. But the experience of PL/1 would tend to suggest that the all-embracing
suitable-for-all-problems language tends to become a dog's breakfast. The
phrase which comes to mind here is "jack of all trades, master of none". I
suspect Ada might be the same, but since I've never used it this is only
speculation.

> > One of Python's specific design choices was to reject that: it was
> > deliberately designed to cooperate well with other tools (and
> > languages in particular) instead.
>
> Embracing one does not mean rejecting the other, since any language
> designer with any sense realizes that even if the goal of being able
> to do everything in one language is a noble one, that it is not yet a
> practical goal to achieve today.  Allowing a language to cooperate
> well with other languages, while also nibling away at the goal of
> being able to do more and more within the language, is the
> pragmatist's way.
>
Well, again I find myself in less-than-total agreement here. I'd much rather
have a toolkit than a Swiss Army knife with 113 blades.

> > It seems to me no convincing case has ever been made that a single
> > language MUST do everything well.  Many widespread languages aim at
> > that -- Common Lisp, Dylan, C++, Eiffel, Java, just to name a few.
> > Python doesn't.
>
> > I prefer Python.
>
Well I prefer Python too, but I don't think it needs to be good at
everything.

> Well, you clearly don't prefer Python as much as me, since I'd prefer
> to use it for everything.
>
Yes, but at least now you know *why* I wouldn't prefer to use it for
everything. I believe (and think Alex does too) that to add too many
features would lead Python away from its present elegant simplicity (never
forgetting the "print >>" wart, about which I will bug the implementation
team forever, since I don't believe for a second they will destroy backwards
compatibilty by taking it out).

> |>oug
>
> P.S. Btw, I never "clamored" for any changes.  I merely mused on what
> would make Python a better language.  You, as much as anyone, should
> understand the difference.

Yeah, but when twenty people muse publicly they tend to get grouped together
even though individually their approaches may be quite reasonable.

one-man's-muse-is-another-man's-clamor-ly y'rs  - steve