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