Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?

[Douglas Alan]

Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr at gmx.net> writes:

> On 15 Jun., 22:58, Douglas Alan <d... at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> For instance, I believe that Python is now too big, and that much
>> of what is in the language itself should be replaced with more
>> general Scheme-like features.  Then a good macro mechanism should
>> be implemented so that all the conveniences features of the
>> language can be implemented via macro definitions in the standard
>> library.

> And why sould anyone reimplement the whole standard library using
> macro reductions? Because this is the "one obvious way to do it" for
> people who are addicted to Scheme?

(1) By, "should be replaced", I meant in an ideal world.  I'm not
proposing that this be done in the real world anytime soon.

(2) I didn't suggest that a single line of the standard library be
changed.  What would need to be changed is the core Python language,
not the standard library.  If this idea were implemented, the core
language could be made smaller, and the features that were thereby
removed from the language core could be moved into the standard
library instead.

(3) My reasons for wanting this have nothing to do with being
"addicted to Scheme", which I almost never use.  It has to do more
with my language design and implementation aesthetics, and my desire
for a syntax extension mechanism so that I can add my own language
features to Python without having to hack on the CPython source code.

|>oug