Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?
doug at alum.mit.edu
Sat Jun 23 01:51:28 CEST 2007
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
> "Douglas Alan" <doug at alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
> | "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.
Sussman isn't my god -- Kate Bush is.
Just because I'm right and you're wrong, doesn't mean that I'm in
denial. It is you who are in denial if you believe that syntax is
unimportant, as long as one is provided the required functionality.
In fact, that's stereotypical Computer Science denial. Computer
Science academics will typically state as a truism that semantics are
what is important and syntax is just a boring trifle in comparison.
But time and time again, you'll see programming languages succeed or
fail more on their syntax than on their semantics. And issues of
syntax is often where you see the most inflamed debates. Just look at
all the flames one used to hear about Python using whitespace
significantly. Or all the flames that one will still hear about Lisp
using a lot of parentheses.
You seem oblivious to the fact that one of the huge benefits of Python
is its elegant and readable syntax. The problem with not having a
"flexible syntax", is that a programming language can't provide
off-the-shelf an elegant syntax for all functionality that will ever
be needed. Eventually programmers find themselves in need of new
elegant functionality, but without a corresponding elegant syntax to
go along with the new functionality, the result is code that does not
look elegant and is therefore difficult to read and thus maintain.
Consequently, "flexibility of function" is often moot without
"flexibility of syntax". I don't know how I can make it any clearer
than this. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I am saying, but
just because you don't understand, or if you do, that you don't agree,
doesn't mean that I don't have a reasoned and reasonable point of
> | 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.
Take the issue up with Paul Graham. Since making a fortune developing
software in Lisp (making heavy use of macros), he now has much more
free time to write essays defending the truth than I do:
More information about the Python-list