Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
duncan.booth at invalid.invalid
Thu Feb 18 16:50:29 CET 2010
Steve Howell <showell30 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
> quadruple strawman.
> Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code but
even if it was fit for purpose when shipped it is quite possible that the
software will interact badly with other software that did not exist at the
time of shipping.
> Obscuring line numbers is a bad idea, even with named functions.
downloaded files is generally a pretty good idea and practicality beats
> Having your customers stay on older versions of your software is a bad
> idea, even with named functions.
I think that's their decision, not mine.
> Not being able to know which version of software you're customer is
> running is a bad idea, even with named functions.
I agree, but getting a complete coherent description out of a customer is
not always an easy task. (I'm reading the word 'customer' here to include
the case where there is no monetary relationship between the software
author and the entity using it, but even when there is I think this still
Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com
More information about the Python-list