Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Alex Martelli]

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> writes:
>> I think Python's problem is its success. Whenever something is
>> succesful, the first thing people want is more features. Hell, that is
>> how you know it is a success. The BDFL still talks about simplicity,
>> but that is history. GvR, IMHO, should chased wish-listers away with
>> "use Lisp" and kept his gem small and simple.
> 
> That's silly.  Something being successful means people want to use it
> to get things done in the real world.  At that point they start
> needing the tools that other languages provide for dealing with the
> real world.  The real world is not a small and simple place, and small
> simple systems are not always enough to cope with it.  If GVR had kept
> his gem small and simple, it would have remained an academic toy, and
> I think he had wide-reaching ambitions than that.

I disagree, somewhat.  Simplicity is not just history: it's still a
principle Pythonistas cherish -- and 3.0 will be about restoring some
of that, not by removing "tools you NEED for dealing with the real
world", but at least some of the MTOWTDI that HAS crept in by instead
adding a few of the "tools that *other languages* provide".  Sure,
practicality beats purity -- and while simple is better than complex,
complex is better than complicated.  I further argue that GvR *HAS*
"kept his [gem? what gem? it's Python, not Ruby!] small and simple" --
not QUITE as small and simple as it might have been kept in the best
of all possible worlds, but still outstandingly so compared with other
languages of comparable power and ease.

And Kenny's suggestion to "chase wish-listers away" is excellent --
one can use Dylan or C# or O'CAML or whatever else as an alternative
to Lisp, if that's what will best get them to stop bleating.  Besides,
"if you want PL/I you know where to find it" has nice precedents (in
the only other language which was widely successful in the real world
while adhering to "provide only one way to perform an operation" as
one of its guiding principles -- not perfectly, but, close enough:-).


Alex