Python becoming less Lisp-like

[Peter Maas]

Fernando schrieb:
> The real problem with Python is that it has been very successful as a
> scripting language in the static-typing/C/C++ world. Those
> programmers, instead of adapting their evil ways to Python, and
> realizing the advantages of a dynamic language, are influencing
> Python's design and forcing it into the static-typing mold.

Examples?

> Python is going the C++ way: piling feature upon feature, adding bells
> and whistles while ignoring or damaging its core design.

What is core design? What are bells and whistles? I find it surprising
that you talk about adding bells and whistles, whereas the URL you are
referring to is about removing features.

> The new 'perlified' syntax for decorators, the new static type bonds
> and the weird decision to kill lambda instead of fixing it are good
> examples that show that Python is going the wrong way.

I don't think that the introduction of '@' for decorators justifies
the term perlification. If special characters are avoided at all costs
Python could become too verbose like Java which is often critized for
that in c.l.py.

> What used to be a cool language will soon be an interpreted C/C++
> without any redeeming value. A real pity...

What do you mean with cool? Which parts of Python are C/C++ish? Which
features leave Python "without any redeeming value"? This phrase
is close to trolling because is vague, emotional and unspecific.

The fear of the anti-static fanatics is unfounded. Guido has made
clear that he is thinking of a  pychecker-like mechanism for
validating programs at compile time. There's nothing wrong with
defining interfaces and conditions and being able to check them
before actually running the program.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas,  M+R Infosysteme,  D-52070 Aachen,  Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------