Python is readable

[Rick Johnson]

On Mar 14, 7:27 pm, Chris Angelico <ros... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, here's something for debate.
>
> Should the readability of a language be gauged on the basis of its
> standard library, or should you be comparing actual code?

I think the library matters greatly. Yes, one could argue that the
same functionality "could" be wrapped-up in the competing language,
but then, why has it not already been wrapped?

When comparing say, "language A" (WITHOUT a built-in print function)
and "Language B" (WITH a built-in print function), would you cry
unfairness when B wielded the built-in?

> [...]
> Of course, that's all without getting into the question of what does
> "readable" even mean.

One could get caught in an infinite loop of the "Chicken and the Egg"
paradox here. However, when we are talking about the Python
programming language "readable" simply means: "neophyte readable".
That is, "readable to someone with little or no experience with the
language". I think that has always been Python's philosophy from the
beginning (even all the way back to CP4E!).

> This has nothing to do with the eternal question
> of whether it's more readable to use verbose English keywords or
> cryptic symbols.

Again, for the case of Python, cryptic symbols are frowned upon. Of
course for the "hacker", cryptic symbols can save keystrokes and white
space -- but at the expense of "neophyte readability"!

> ChrisA

Thanks for reminding me of your name. I had almost forgotten who i
replied to ;-)