Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?
tjreedy at udel.edu
Tue Jun 12 20:19:22 CEST 2007
"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
| > 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
| > already multiple ways to do many things. And there are probably at
| > 10 suggested innovations for everyone accepted.
| Yes I know that. But that doesn't stop a lot of python supporters in this
| group to come with a variation that suggests once there is an obvious way
| 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?
More information about the Python-list