A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda

[Pisin Bootvong]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> Now imagine you had to do this with every object.
>
>   def add_five(x)
>     # return x + 5   <--  anonymous integer literal, not allowed!!!
>    five = 5   # define it first
>    return x + five
>

I mentioned that as Slippery slope fallacious argument in other reply.

> [...]
> That doesn't mean you can't develop scalable solutions to all kinds of
> problems using Python. But it does mean that the scalability of the
> overall solution comes from architectural details that are not related
> to Python itself. Like, say, having lots of machines linked by a fast
> network, working on problems that decompose along those lines quite
> nicely.

Is there such language that allow scalability without any need for
design on the underlying architecture?


Python doesn't obscure or become obstacle in utilise those
architecture. Python allow one to design scalable architecture. So
Python IS scalable, isn't it? Only when Python prevent the up-scaling
or Python made scaled up project unmanagable that you can say that
Python is not scalable.

In 'Team scalable' axis, Python is easy to learn for average
programmer. So it is easier for Python to scale up.
'Data scalable' axis is language neutral, it depends on how you
architecture your database, etc.

'User requirement scalable' axis require both infrastructure and
language to provide:

No matter how scalable your language is, you cannot make a 100MHz/128MB
server serve 100,000 client a second over the internet.

No matter how many server and load balancing you have, you cannot
practically program  gmail using purely MS-DOS bat file.