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

Douglas Alan 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."

   http://library.readscheme.org/servlets/cite.ss?pattern=Ste-78b

Do you now see how Scheme's syntax extension mechanism is relevant?

|>oug



More information about the Python-list mailing list