Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?
steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au
Fri Jun 22 08:17:15 CEST 2007
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:25:37 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
> You are imagining something very different from what is proposed.
> Lisp-like macros don't allow "anything goes".
Provided people avoid doing anything "which would be considered very
rude" (your own words).
Python already allows me to shoot myself in the foot, if I wish. I'm
comfortable with that level of freedom. I'm not necessarily comfortable
with extensions to the language that would allow me the freedom to shoot
myself in the head. I would need to be convinced of the advantages, as
would many other people, including the BDFL.
It isn't clear exactly what functionality a hypothetical Python macro
system would include, let alone whether the benefits would outweigh the
costs, so I think it is very important for proponents of such a macro
system to justify precisely why it is valuable before expecting others to
go off and spend potentially thousands of man-hours turning Python into a
shadow of Lisp/Scheme. (It took Lisp half a century and millions of
dollars of corporate funding to reach where it is now. Anyone who thinks
it is a trivial task to turn Python into Lisp "only better" is deluded --
one can't merely bolt on macros onto the existing Python compiler.)
More information about the Python-list