Python becoming less Lisp-like

Serge Orlov Serge.Orlov at
Tue Mar 15 15:21:54 CET 2005

Fernando wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:23:05 GMT, Peter Seibel
<peter at>
> wrote:
> >Looks like the BDFL is planning to take lambda, reduce, filter, and
> >map out of Python in the next big rev of Python (so called Python
> >3000):
> >
> >  <>
> Basically, it says that it will get rid of the explicit map, filter
> and reduce and substitute them by some syntactic sugar that uses them
> implicitly. That's ok, and not a big deal.
> It will also get rid of lambda, and it's not a great loss, since
> python's version is so limited that it's almost useless. Besides,
> given the syntactic sugar used to replace map, reduce and filter,
> there's no real need for lambda in the most usual cases.
> 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. Python is
> going the C++ way: piling feature upon feature, adding bells and
> whistles while ignoring or damaging its core design.

You're wrong about design:
Quoting Guido: The first sound bite I had for Python was, "Bridge
the gap between the shell and C." So I never intended Python to be
the primary language for programmers.

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

Yeah, that was a good time. After a nice bridge between the shell
and C was built they never ceased piling feature upon feature and
kept adding bells and wristles.


More information about the Python-list mailing list