Why functional Python matters

[Marco Antoniotti]

Steve Holden wrote:

> "Henrik Motakef"  wrote ...
>
> >laotseu  writes:
> >
> >
> >>Lispers friends, let's have you're opinion on that point : is Common
> >>Lisp a functionnal language ?
> >
> >Common Lisp is whatever you want it to be: You can write
> >functional-style programs in it if you want, but is certainly not a
> >"pure" functional language. It supports several other paradigms
> >equally well, and even more important, it will let you integrate
> >yet-unkown paradigms when you think that they are useful.
> >
> >There are really ideas to remove the functional stuff from Python? I
> >wonder why people frequently think that making things impossible will
> >improve programming languages.
> >
> >just-because-it's-flexible-doesn't-mean-it's-perl-ly y'rs
>
>
>
> I can see that, but wouldn't you agree that removing redundant 
> features also
> removes cruft from the source, and eases the maintenance burden, in turn
> reducing the likelihood of implementation bugs? While Guido is known to
> regret the inclusion of lambda in Python, I don't think he would want to
> take it out on purely ideological grounds. Indeed, the suggestion was 
> not so
> much that it would be taken out of the existing language, rather that it
> would not be implemented in some "futurePython", normally called 
> Python 3 or
> Python 3000.
>
> It would be nice to have One True Python, 


Hav I missed something?  I thought that that is exactly what you have now :)

Cheers

--
Marco Antoniotti