Python as Guido Intended

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef <mwm at mired.org>:
> Antoon Pardon <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> writes:
>> Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
>>
>> The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things
>> that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for
>> things that enable working in the python philosophy.
>
> And what's wrong with that?

It seems a bit intollerant and contraproductive to me.

If thet would just concentrated on what they want, they could
have progressed further on that road, then where they are now,
because progress sometimes simple stops because other could
use something for what it was not intended.

>>> Yes. And if you need a red hammmer, you should get a red hammer, not
>>> use red spray paint on one that wasn't designed to be red. Just
>>> because *you* don't see how providing a red option violates the
>>> philosophy of python doesn't mean that it doesn't do so.
>>
>> Well this seems to be the main conflict between those who would
>> like Python to go a bit further and those that oppose it.
>>
>> Should the priority be to enable python's philosophy or should
>> it be the priority to limit python to only allow it's philosophy.
>
> Those two statements say the same thing.

They are not. 

> Part of the Python philosphy,
> from "import this", is that there should only be one obvious way to do
> it.

It doesn't say that. It says:

There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

Here you see the difference on emphasis. You are focussing on the
only one, while the original Python Koan seems to focus on the
there should be one.

So supose someone proposes a change that will introduce one
obvious way, to solve a particular problem. However it
introduces a second obvious way to solve an other problem
too.

I think we should accept such a proposal. It seems you and
a lot of others seem to think such proposals should be
rejected.

> By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're automatically
> limiting python to not allow other - specifically non-pythonic - ways
> to do the same thing.

No it doesn't.

Supose someone proposes a change that will introduce one
obvious way, to solve a particular problem. However it introduces a
second non pythonic way to solve an other problem.

I don't think there is something wrong with accepting this
change. However it seems you do.

-- 
Antoon Pardon