Is there no end to Python?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

sjmsoft at gmail.com a écrit :
> John Salerno wrote:
> 
>>But isn't Python sort of known for the opposite, i.e. 'one simple way',
>>or something to that effect?
> 
> 
> The Python language is clear and concise and so I don't think takes
> long to learn. 

To learn the "basics", no. To really grasp all you can do with it - 
talking about expressivity and black magic -, this takes *much* more 
time. Think of all you can do with decorators, descriptors, metaclasses, 
  closures, etc...

> But there's so many libraries and packages available
> that I'll probably never use more than a fraction of them.  This is
> good thing because I can ignore what I don't need.

Well, I found myself reinventing the (square) wheel(tm) so many times - 
I wrote a csv package before noticing there was a much better one the 
standard lib - that I don't think it would be wise to ignore too much...

Just my 2 cents...