Python, a perfect crystal?

[Roman Suzi]

On 8 Feb 2003, Paul Rubin wrote:

>There's an old saying about programming languages: APL is a perfect crystal;
>if you add anything to it, it becomes flawed.

Really? Six years ago I developed APL interpreter (just for fun)
under DOS. It was not complete one, but I had added advanced features
I needed to it (mainly some new indexing I needed for my math diploma work).

>Lisp, on the other hand, is a ball of mud: throw anything into it and it's
>still Lisp.
>
>So now we have PEP 308, about conditional expressions for Python, the
>subject of endless enormous threads here both in past times and now.

...

>Does that mean Python has that APL-like crystalline characteristic?
>Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

No. Python is a crystal of glass ("practicality beats purity"). (And glass is
really a liquid) Guido started with tetrahedron. So probably Python direction
is toward sphere.

>I do know that Lisp has been much more successful than APL for
>developing big, complicated software systems.  Its flexibility may
>have something to do with that.  Or maybe not.
>
>Python will certainly keep evolving as its implementations get more
>serious and powerful.  I wonder how that crystalline quality will
>evolve with it.


Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by Linux RedHat 7.3