Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?

[Terry Reedy]

"Douglas Alan" <doug at alum.mit.edu> wrote in message 
news:lcy7ibj1xo.fsf at gaffa.mit.edu...
| "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
| > I think this points to where Sussman went wrong in his footnote and
| > Alan in his defense thereof.  Flexibility of function -- being able
| > to do many different things -- is quite different from flexibility
| > of syntax
|
| I think you are setting up a false dichotomy.

I think this denial of reality is your way of avoiding admitting, perhaps 
to yourself, that your god Sussman made a mistake.

| One that is related to
| the false unification that annoying people used to always make when
| they would perpetually argue that it wasn't important which
| programming language you programmed in, as they are all Turing
| equivalent anyway.  Well, I sure as hell don't want to write all my
| programs for a Turning machine, and a Turing machine is certainly
| Turing equivalent!

Diversionary crap unrelated to the previous discussion.

Bye.