Python is DOOMED! Again!

Rick Johnson rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 21:23:15 CET 2015


On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:32:04 AM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> Rick,
> 
> > Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming
> > world. The only language that offers the cleanest and
> > most intuit-able syntax, AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW
> > IT ALL AWAY [...] ?
> 
> Nonsense. You are just used to it. I can read C with the
> same feeling of intuitiveness as you do Python. There's
> nothing inherently more intuitive about python and I just
> wished that meme died already. Besides it's all in the eye
> of the beholder.

And is *YOUR* eye the only eye in this universe? A concert
pianist could say the same about a piece of music that only
a handful of people in the world could play!

    YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT PYTHON WAS, AND IS MEANT TO BE!

Python was not created to be some esoteric language that
sadistic professors could drop on students heads like a
grand piano from a third story window, *NO*, python was
meant to be a gateway to intuitive programming bliss. 

Python was meant to be the "lingua franca" of the
Programming world. The idea was to cut out the noisy syn
taxes that plagued other language and thereby allow the
programmer to focus on solving problems and writing
algorithms.

As the complexity of a syntax increases, so too does the
work required to comprehend it. If you like C so much then
go back to writing C code, Python fills a niche, and we must
remain committed to our founding goals.

  THIS "TYPE HINTING" IDEA HAS TO BE THE SINGLE WORSE CASE
  OF FEATURE CREEP I'VE EVER HEARD OF!

> PEP 484 just becomes silly when it comes to the section
> where it discusses whether type hints are pythonic. If
> that ridiculous paragraph reflects how we are looking
> today at the inclusion of new features, than I agree
> python is walking a dangerous road. 

  "IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS HARD TO EXPLAIN, IT'S A BAD
  IDEA."
  
> But that also means Type Hints aren't the real problem
> here. We have a much bigger problem about the programming
> language principles and philosophy.

I don't understand??? 

Now it seems you are agreeing with me?

Are you sure you've given this issue it's due consideration?
And have you weighed that consideration from an objective
perspective? I think any rational person would agree that
Python is more important than our personal needs, wants, or
desires.

> In all honesty though, I never cared much about the ideals
> and zens in programming languages, especially ones want to
> want to adopt a batteries-included philosophy.

And yet you're here, using the Python language who's
*SECOND-PHILOSOPHICAL-GOAL* was to provide a large stdlib.

Why are you torturing yourself by using a language you
obviously don't like? But more importantly, why are you
attempting to torture everyone else by encouraging the
demise of this fine language? At best this idea will violate
Python's founding philosophy, at worst it will be the end of
something that brought light into a dark world.

> Always seemed to me like nonsense talk. My experience
> taught me that you can't just have the latter without
> eventually breaking the former. 'import this' always read
> to me like wishful thinking.

The "python zen" will always be under attack because it's a
difficult set of rules to follow, but despite the practical
application of the rules, the philosphy they describe is
*SOUND*!

Many times killing an opponent may be easier than attempting
to compromise with him, but we don't sacrifice logical
foundations just to appease every Python programmer who
wants Python to be more like X, Y, or Z! (or REXX!)

What's next? Are we going to cow-tow to the lispers and
adopt "nesting to infinity" just so we can go around
blabbing about how easy a lisp interpreter is to write,
never mind that writing any *REAL* lisp code is an exercise
in *EYEBALL-PARSING-ASININITY*!

How about taking after the Perl philosophy of peppering the
syntax with punctuation until the very sight of it causes an
intellectual sneeze fest! 

Not enough for you? Heck, why allow Dijkstra to rest-in-
peace in an upward facing position when we could resurrect
GOTO!

Need more examples?


> Python isn't going anywhere towards obscurity. Not at
> least until a competiting language comes (it hasn't yet).
> I agree though that Python complexity has increased
> greatly over the years and this isn't showing any signs of
> stopping. And that is exactly the type of thing that
> promotes the birth of a new and better programming
> language. And, interestingly enough, that is always a good
> thing.

I agree. The birth of new languages is always a good thing,
(i'm a huge fan of evolution if you have not noticed!), and
i am fully aware that Python is not going to live forever.

Sooner or later someone will see the deficiencies of Python
and think: "Hey, i can do better!", but that time is not
now. Python still has a firm grip on the niche of
"intuitive syntax with batteries included" and we have a
*DUTY* to every potential programmer to ensure that Python
will be available for them when they need it. 

 YOU CANNOT BENEFIT EVOLUTION BY COMMITTING SUICIDE!

============================================================
 SUMMARY
============================================================
You argue that readability is a relative construct, and you
are correct, but what you fail to acknowledge is that while
the ability to read noisy syntaxes improves with practice,
the comprehensive abilities of neophytes will always remain
constant. Python was built for the sake of the neophytes, 
not to suffer the whims of the guru!



More information about the Python-list mailing list