Python as Guido Intended

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <mwm at mired.org>:
> rurpy at yahoo.com writes:
>> "Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> writes:
>>> rurpy at yahoo.com writes:
>>> > Different programming styles are appropriate for different
>>> > tasks, different times and different places, different people.
>>> > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe
>>> > that one style of programming fits all situations.
>>> If I read you right, what you're saying is that hammmers aren't good
>>> at driving screws. I don't think anyone would argue about that.
>> No, the analogy is more like this.  Python is hammer that comes
>> in green or blue.  The hammer's developers say (perhaps with
>> some reason) that cool colors like green and blue are the best
>> colors because they promote calm when used.  Calm hammerers
>> are more productive and less violent.  My work is
>> repairing the inside of dark water tanks.  It is hard to see blue
>> and green hammers, and to find them if I put them down.
>> I suggest that Python have the option of red hammers.
>
> So you're suggesting a fundamental change to the nature of
> Python. It's inherently a blue/green language. Making it available in
> Red violates the spirit and philosphy of the language, which is why:

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.

Why did it take so long before a ternary operator was introduced?
Because it was thought it could be too easily abused. The fact
that there was also good use for a ternary operator within the
spirit of Python was regarded as less important.

>> The Python people respond with horror, pointing out the problems
>> with red hammers.
>
> In other words, there are reasons that python doesn't come in red, and
> they will gladly tell you what they are.
>
>> Regarding the differences between hammers and screwdrivers...
>> When a screwdriver is appropriate I use a screwdriver.  If I
>> need to write code that does a large amount of CPU intensive
>> number crunching, I use C, not Python.
>
> 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.

One groups seems to think that python's spirit is not broken
by allowing things that seem counter to it, as long as people
can without much trouble, work within that spirit.

An other group seems to think that any allowance to disgress
from python's spirit is an assault on it.

-- 
Antoon Pardon