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

Chris Mellon arkanes at
Wed Jun 27 17:09:57 CEST 2007

On 6/27/07, Andy Freeman <anamax at> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:03 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> > > Map doesn't work on generators or iterators because they're not part
> > > of the common lisp spec, but if someone implemented them as a library,
> > > said library could easily include a map that handled them as well.
> >
> > Right, more scattered special purpose kludges instead of a powerful
> > uniform interface.
> Huh?  The interface could continue to be (map ...).
> Python's for statement relies on the fact that python is mostly object
> oriented and many of the predefined types have an iterator interface.
> Lisp lists and vectors currently aren't objects and very few of the
> predefined types have an iterator interface.
> It's easy enough to get around the lack of objectness and add the
> equivalent of an iterator iterface, in either language.  The fact that
> lisp folks haven't bothered suggests that this isn't a big enough
> issue.

Is this where I get to call Lispers Blub programmers, because they
can't see the clear benefit to a generic iteration interface?

> The difference is that lisp users can easily define python-like for
> while python folks have to wait for the implementation.

Yes, but Python already has it (so the wait time is 0), and the Lisp
user doesn't.

More information about the Python-list mailing list