Python 3K or Python 2.9?
bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Mon Sep 17 11:41:34 CEST 2007
TheFlyingDutchman a écrit :
> On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Steve Holden <st... at holdenweb.com> wrote:
> I made a complaint about a small design choice.
It's by no mean a "small" design choice.
> I also made it in the
> past tense at least once ("should have done it") and explicitly
> expressed that I knew it wasn't going to happen. Python was created
> based on a language that was designed to make it easy to use by
Most beginners still find Python easy to use AFAICT. At least, I know a
lot of *non* programmers using it.
> Doing so made it a clean and clear language. My preference
> is for everything to be as clean and clear as possible.
Mine too, and that's why I like Python the way it is : syntactic sugar
for the common cases, *and* and easy way to play with lower levels when
> Jury-rigging new features is going to make the elite happy but very
> likely will be viewed differently by us average programmers.
"us" ? Who is "us" ?
>>change other aspects of the language, such as the ability to graft
>>functions into instances and classes as methods.
> Those are elite-type features that make code harder to understand by
> average programmers and probably the elite as well.
Good news, there's a language designed exactly for "average programmers"
that find these kind of features - as well as anything as complex as
operator overloading, metaclasses, descriptors, higher order functions,
multiple inheritance, lazy evaluation, and anything dynamic - way too
"elite". It's named Java. The only drawback is that instead of "elite
features", you'll have to resort to mumbo-jumbo overcomplexified "design
patterns" and write ten times more code to solve the simplest things.
To make a long story short: if you don't understand some "advanced"
Python's features, then just don't use them. But have mercy and let us
"elite programmers" (lol...) use more of Python's power.
More information about the Python-list