PEP scepticism

[Alex Martelli]

"Bernhard Reiter" <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote in message
news:9hfqb5$dsllb$3 at ID-89274.news.dfncis.de...
    ...
> But as Dennis Ritchie said about the C99 standard commitee:
> "I wish they had resisted more firmly."
> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/3380/lw-12-ritchie/

...but as Ritchie ALSO said in the very same interview...:
"""
What is changing is that higher-level languages are becoming
much more important as the number of computer-involved people
increases. Things that began as neat but small tools, like Perl
or Python, say, are suddenly more central in the whole scheme
of things. ...  higher-level ways of instructing machines will
continue to occupy more of the center of the stage.
"""

*Higher-level ways of instructing machines* include list
comprehensions as compared to fully-written-out-loops,
generators as compared to laborious saving of state, etc.

I read Ritchie as saying he wished C could remain C (though
he does admit that some evolution is absolutely inevitable,
and refuses to second-guess the C99's committee work, having
chosen not to participate in it), but also that, while C has
its niches (and they'll remain!), the "higher-level" way of
like *has JUST begun* and has a way to go towards "occupying
more of the center of the stage"

Simplicity is an important Pythonic value, as it was (and to
some extent still is) for C (albeit for different reasons
and with different slant) -- Python must not become Perl, just
like C must not become C++.  As Python *sheds* unused features
(xrange's deadweight parts, etc -- and maybe one day those
parts of the standard library that are little-used and specific
to peculiar platforms), it can hardly be accused of not keeping
simplicity firmly in its sights.

But that simplicity must not be pursued at the cost of "the
higher-level ways" of doing things.  Now *THAT* would be
language suicide by inaction!-)


Alex