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

[Terry Reedy]

"Antoon Pardon" <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message 
news:slrnf6smjs.cf9.apardon at rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
| > So?  Tim wrote 'There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious 
way
| > to do it'.  The primary clause is that there should at least one.  The
| > secondary clause is that once there is a good and obvious way to do
| > something, we take a hard look before adding another.  As it is, there 
are
| > already multiple ways to do many things.  And there are probably at 
least
| > 10 suggested innovations for everyone accepted.
|
| Yes I know that. But that doesn't stop a lot of python supporters in this 
news
| group to come with a variation that suggests once there is an obvious way 
to do
| something in python, there really is no need any more to look at ways
| that do it differently.

Try suggesting on a Lisp or Scheme group that having only one type of 
syntax (prefix expressions) lacks something and that they should add 
variety in the form of statement syntax ;-)  Hint: some Lispers have 
bragged here about the simplicity of 'one way to do it' and put Python down 
for its mixed syntax.  (Of course, this does not mean that some dialects 
have not sneaked in lists of statements thru a back door ;-).

Would you really want Python to have a hundred new features every release?

tjr