Python Rocks!

[William Tanksley]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:43:43 -0800, tye4 wrote:
>Ivan Van Laningham <ivanlan at callware.com> wrote in message >

>> Don't code that way to start with.  It's dumb.  Treat yourself to a good
>> editor.

>Better yet. Fix the dumb language.

Why is that "solution" better?  Why is forcing thousands of people to
change gigabytes of code better than one idiot learning how to program?

>> You got about as much chance of getting this into Python as you do of
>> getting hit by a meteor.  Less, actually, because the odds for the
>> latter are measurable.  What you're asking for is for Python to not be
>> Python.  You don't like it, design your own language, build the
>> interpreter or compiler, and publish it.  Maybe you can get some people
>> to use it.  One of them won't be me.

>> You're saying to people who know and love Python, "Python is a great
>> language except that it's Python.  Let's fix it."  We don't think it's
>> broken.  Your insistence on swimming upstream on this issue is not only
>> wrong-headed but boring.

>Python is good but could be better.

True.

>Everything has flaws and nothing is perfect. If we can't fix it then its a
>different
>matter.

>But in this case the problem can be fixed.

Yes, it can.  Trivially, in fact -- the one person who's complaining can
relax and either learn to like it or go somewhere else.

>It just so happens that there are a lot of bull-headed close-minded
>people than I reckoned there would be.

That's ALWAYS true.

>I'm pretty certain now that this problem will never be fixed.

You're the only person who has any chance at fixing it, so I guess so.

>I suggest you go to other newsgroups and let them know how brilliant Python
>is because it has an invisible block terminator.

How do you think I learned about Python?

>Since we are so lazy let's just skip the ending anything and just use
>indentation.

Exactly!  Now you're getting into the spirit of things.  Never do more
work than you have to!

>Math:
>Before:
>    (2 + 3) * 5

>After Python rule:
>    (2 + 3
>            * 5

Forth is much better for that -- "2 3 + 5 *".  Remember, maximize
laziness.  Now, Python didn't choose this one because it would require a
completely different syntax -- we chose to stick with conventional math
rules.

If you were being realistic here (which you aren't), you'd realize that
Python doesn't only leave out the end token -- it also leaves out the
beginning.  So your example would be

 2+3
   *5

>HTML:
>Before:
>    <h1> Python indentation: <i>Why it is such a pain</i>
>   </h1>
>    Blah blah blah

>After:
>    <h1> Python indentation
>            <i> Why it is such a pain
>    Blah blah blah

Did you know that there are many popular products which allow one to write
HTML in exactly this way?  Humans thrive on this kind of thing;
indentation is really useful to people, and if machines can understand it
there's no reason to use anything else.

>Go ahead and convince these guys to switch do it the "Python Way".
>And Good luck. You will need it.

Excellent.  Actually, as you can tell, we already have -- I myself am a
convert.  Join us.  Together we will indent the galaxy.

>-tye4

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley, in hoc signo hack