I sing the praises of lambda, my friend and savior!

Antoon Pardon apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Fri Oct 15 10:56:40 CEST 2004


Op 2004-10-13, Jeff Shannon schreef <jeff at ccvcorp.com>:
> Clark C. Evans wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 10:58:14AM -0700, Jeff Shannon wrote:
>>| Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>| >I find it better to let the coder decide what makes sense in his program
>>| >and what not.
>>| 
>>| Which is the Perl philosophy.  Many people seem quite happy with Perl 
>>| because of this TMTOWTDI attitude; personally, I prefer Python's clarity 
>>| and simplicity.
>>
>>On this list, that's damn near close to an ad hominem attack.
>>  
>>
>
> Only if you choose to read it that way.  I pointed out that many people 
> are happy with Perl, thus implying that the philosophy behind 
> programming languages is largely a matter of taste.  It makes sense to 
> choose a language whose design philosophy matches one's own.  From this 
> and other previous discussions, it seems to me that Antoon Pardon has a 
> number of disagreements with Python's design goals; that's fine, he's 
> certainly entitled to his opinion, but there are others who *do* agree 
> with Python's design goals.

I don't think I have a problem with python design goals. But I see
nothing in the design goals that contradicts the notion of an 
anonymious function.

Further more I can't think of Python as having design goals, more
something like design guidelines. Guidelines whose priority changes
depending on the subject and favor of the person.

One time it is an exception is never important enough to break the
rule, the next time it is practicallity beats purity. As such I
feel that often enough arguments carry very little weight and it
all boils down to what feels right and after one has such a feeling
one just picks the guidelines that supports this feeling and declares
it has the highest priority in this case.

It is very well possible I do unjustice to a number of people now,
but that is the impression I get.

> ISTM that it would therefore be better, 
> overall, for those who disagree with Pythonic philosophy to look for a 
> different language that suits them better,

My philosophy is to use the language that I think is best suited 
to solve the problem in front of me. As python changes I will
continue to evaluate it in that respect.

> and those who agree with 
> Pythonic philosophy to keep using Python.  Trying to please everyone 
> with a single language just isn't gonna work, nor should it be expected 
> to.  Pointing this fact out has nothing to do with my personal opinions 
> about Mr. Pardon, you, or anyone else.

IMO there is nothing to be gained by saying some method of programming
is unpythonic or not. As python changes what is pythonic and what is
not will change too. I wouldn't be surprised that in some days before
version 2, some people would have called nested scopes unpythonic
and suggested that those who wanted them should look for an other
language. IMO saying something is unpythonic is just saying you
are against it, because once it is adapted it becomes pythonic.

-- 
Antoon Pardon



More information about the Python-list mailing list