General question about Python design goals

[bonono at gmail.com]

Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
> bonono at gmail.com wrote:
> > Paul Rubin wrote:
> >>Look at the list.count() example at the start of this thread.
> >>Diagnosing it isn't hard.  Curing it isn't hard.  It doesn't bloat
> >>Python by an order of magnitude.  A suitably factored implementation
> >>might handle lists and strings with the exact same code and not incur
> >>any extra cost at all.  That type of thing happens all the time here.
> >
> > I believe the language creator use the "lack of" as a way to
> > prevent/discourage that kind of usage. Just like the ternary
> > operator(still don't know why it is finally accepted). It is not a
> > problem(not having), it is a feature(to teach you program better), so
> > what cure are we talking about ?
>
> Sorry, but I still do not get it. Why is it a feature if I cannot count
> or find items in tuples? Why is it bad program style if I do this? So
> far I haven't got any reasonable explanation and I think there is no.
>
I have no idea, I can understand their view, not necessarily agree. And
reasonable explanation is not something I usually find on this group,
for issues like this.