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:
>> Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <mwm at mired.org>:
>>> Antoon Pardon <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> writes:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> "That is not the Python way", is just saying "Python doesn't have it"
>>>> in other words. So it can't be the answer to why python can't have
>>>> something.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. At least, it isn't when I use it. A language is more
>>> than just an accumulation of features. Well, a good language is more
>>> than just an accumulation of features - there's a philosophy
>>> underlying the language, that guides what features are added and what
>>> features aren't. Other languages have other philosophies, and wind up
>>> being good for other things.
>>
>> But how this philosophy influences design is not straight forward.
>>
>> The ternary operator was thought of to go against the philosopy,
>
> By who?

I would guess in the first place by Guido. Just look at the history
of how it finaly came to be present and IMO the only conclusion
is that Guido doesn't like a ternary operator.

Then there were those who always argued against the ternary
operator. I'm sure you can dig up some names if you go
through google groups.

>> and now seems to be at least compatible with the philosophy.
>>
>> So when someone asks why it is not in python, saying "It is not
>> the python way" still doesn't answer the question, because the
>> person would probably still like to know what in his proposal
>> is against the python philosophy and why.
>
> Sometimes, such things are easy to explain, and they'll generally get
> that explanation. Sometimes they aren't,

Well maybe that are not that easy to explain because they aren't.

> so you're reduced to
> pointing out similar - but more obvious - things that aren't in the
> language, and "import this", and suggesting that they try it for a
> while and see how it works
>
>>> My vision
>>> isn't perfect - I've changed my mind about things: I used to want real
>>> macros, and I initially disliked list comprehensions. My vision
>>> doesn't agree with the developers - notably including Guido's - a lot
>>> of the time. On the other hand, they haven't done anything that
>>> strikes me as so wrong that I want to spend the time required working
>>> on Python rather than in Python to allow me to get it fixed.
>>
>> I see nothing wrong with that. But I would apreciate it, should
>> you be more open about something being your personal vision.
>> To me something like: "That is not the python way" comes accross
>> as: "You just don't understand about python, if you ask/propose
>> something like that"
>
> That's essentially true. In some cases, the reasons can be explained
> without understanding about python. In some cases, they can't.

Which IMO makes python like a cult. The characteristic of certain
things only explainable to those who have seen the light, makes
for a view that never needs to fear being contradicted. Well
I'm sorry that I can't explain it to you, but you just don't
understand Python.

-- 
Antoon Pardon