Python as Guido Intended

[bonono at gmail.com]

Mike Meyer wrote:
> Whatever it is, trying to turn Python into a tool for dealing with it
> isn't the right thing to do.
Still this tone, and logic. This statement alone is right except that
it may not be what was about.

>
> >> > I think that it is possible to include in Python, things that are
> >> > non-Pythonic (such as a return value from sort()) that allow users
> >> > more stylistic freedom, without degrading the ability of those who
> >> > don't want to use such features, to write in a pure Pythonic manner.
> >> So you think we can turn a hammer into a screwdriver without degrading
> >> the ability to use the hammer to drive nails. The problem is, doing
> >> this means you have a bigger, heavier hammer - which almost certainly
> >> degrades the ability to use it as a hammer.
> > And it follows through, first said it is a screw and since you
> > disagree, you are trying to do screwing with a hammer.
>
> You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not
> me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it
> does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than
> try and mangle a good tool into something it's not. Such attempts are
> pretty much doomed. They nearly inevitably producej a tool that's not
> as good at what the original did as the original, and not as good at
> whatever new task it's being mangledd to do as a tool that was
> designed for that in the first place.
And again.

> By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use
> cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over
> which of the many proposals should be adopted.
That is not the impression I get on here. The impression I get lately
is "ternary" is bad, is hard to read, can always be done "better" with
if then else statement.

> The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling
> someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand
> the Python way.