Dijkstra on Python
Tue Aug 13 06:47:07 CEST 2002
"James J. Besemer" <jb at cascade-sys.com> wrote in
news:mailman.1029211160.24826.python-list at python.org:
> Al Vining [and many others] write:
>> "There should be one -- and preferably only one
>> -- obvious way to do it."
> I have a problem with this particular particle of Python dogma.
> My chief problem is that it's every bit as meaningless and ridiculous
> as when Larry Wall promotes the "other" way of doing things.
> Now, IMO this is a GOOD thing, not a bad one. Having a narrow variety
> of choices for things like this is good for the programmer. Larry
> Wall makes a small point in that productivity will be higher if the
> language already provides the mechanism the programmer first thinks of
> or is most familiar with.
> Thus, in practice, this particular rallying call is every bit as
> meaningless as Perl's.
But isn't it equally valid to say that Python's rallying call is every
bit as meaningFUL as Perl's? I'd say so.
Each approach possesses merit, as you pointed out in your own post, and
the merit has been intentional in Python's case as in Perl's. While it is
wise to consider the limitations and proper context of each perspective,
the finding of such boundaries need not invalidate the design principles
themselves (or even the implementations in question).
...just my $.02 worth,
More information about the Python-list