Python as Guido Intended

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-11-25, EP schreef <EP at zomething.com>:
>
> What is the philosophy?  I'm not the one to answer that,
> but I do use "import this" for reference, and it seems to
> answer some of the points in this thread:
>
>>>> import this
> The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
>
> Beautiful is better than ugly.
> Explicit is better than implicit.
> Simple is better than complex.
> Complex is better than complicated.
> Flat is better than nested.
> Sparse is better than dense.
> Readability counts.
> Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
> Although practicality beats purity.
> Errors should never pass silently.
> Unless explicitly silenced.
> In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
> Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
> Now is better than never.
> Although never is often better than *right* now.
> If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
> If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
> Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
>>>> 

No, it doesn't answer anything. My impression is that the Zen of
Python gets used a lot by the python people like the bible is
used by the christions: You can always find a verse/Koan that
supports your view.

If someone comes with a pratical proposal that breaks a rule,
the proponents will cite: "practical beats purity" and
the opponents will cite: "Special cases aren't special enough
to break the rules:

And each will be convince that his view is the pythonic one.

I'm even of the impression that what is considered pythonic
or not is more related to who proposes it that to what the
proposal is and that after one has so decided the right
rules are selected to defend that decision.

-- 
Antoon Pardon