Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
michele.simionato at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 05:48:35 CET 2009
On Jan 15, 8:02 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> I'd say there was a time Lisp worked the right way, and a time C
> worked the right way, and maybe a time Python worked the right way,
> and for a while, Algol 60 was perfection embodied. But times have
> changed more than those languages have, so they no longer work the
> right way.
Or perhaps it is you who changed? I can only speak for myself, but
when I first met Python (coming from Basic, Pascal, Fortran,
Mathematica, Maple) it was the best language I could imagine.
Now Python is still the best language I can find, but it is no more
the best I can imagine, because I know much more about programming
than before. But I would say that's normal and even healthy.
The best language is the one yet to be invented!
> Have you looked at Tim Sweeney's talk that I mentioned in another post?
I will have a look now.
More information about the Python-list