Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?
doug at alum.mit.edu
Mon Jun 18 21:41:39 CEST 2007
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
> |>oug writes:
>> Scheme has a powerful syntax extension mechanism
> I did not and do not see this as relevant to the main points of my
> summary above. Python has powerful extension mechanisms too, but
> comparing the two languages on this basis is a whole other topic.
Please note that Guy Steele in his abstract for "Rabbit: A Compiler
for SCHEME", specifically mentions that Scheme is designed to be a
minimal language in which, "All of the traditional imperative
constructs [...] as well as many standard LISP constructs [...] are
expressed in macros in terms of the applicative basis set. [...] The
macro approach enables speedy implementation of new constructs as
desired without sacrificing efficiency in the generated code."
Do you now see how Scheme's syntax extension mechanism is relevant?
More information about the Python-list