Python as Guido Intended

[bonono at gmail.com]

Antoon Pardon wrote:
> 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.
>
And exactly what is "python's spirit/philosophy" ? It seems to me that
they are often used in a liberal way, just to support one's argument
that whatever is not in the CURRENT python should not be there.