Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

James Mills prologic at shortcircuit.net.au
Tue Jan 13 23:24:37 EST 2009


On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Carl Banks <pavlovevidence at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Wise people don't believe everything that is written on Wikipedia.
> 2. The person who wrote that line in Python.org is a wise person.

Agreed.

> You know what?  Computer science buzzwords mean jack squat to me.  I
> don't give a horse's tail whether some people label it a fundamental
> concept of object-oriented programming or not.  I think it's a bad
> thing.  And it's a bad thing for exactly the reason I said: it gives
> the library implementor the power to dictate to the user how they can
> and can't use the library.  The cultural impact that would have on the
> community is far worse, IMHO, than any short-sighted benefits like
> being able to catch an accidental usage of an internal variable.
> Trust would be replaced by mistrust, and programming in Python would
> go from a pleasant experience to constant antagonism.

+1

> No thanks.  "Software engineering" be damned.  Python is better off
> the way it is.

Python ihmo is one of the best engineered programming languages
and platform I have ever had the pleasure of working with
and continue to! :)

--JamesMills



More information about the Python-list mailing list