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

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:21:14 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:

> I.e., I could write a new object system for Lisp faster than I could
> even begin to fathom the internal of CPython.  Not only that, I have
> absolutely no desire to spend my valuable free time writing C code.
> I'd much rather be hacking in Python, thank you very much.

Which is very valuable... IF you care about writing a new object system. I
don't, and I think most developers don't, which is why Lisp-like macros
haven't taken off. I simply don't want to think about object syntax, I
just want it to work. I'm happy that Guido and the other Python-dev
people have thought about it, and come up with a good syntax, and are
conservative with their syntax changes. When I use somebody else's
library, I don't want to have to learn their syntax, no matter how cunning
they think it is.

The cost is that if I do have a brilliant new idea for syntax to Python,
it is hard for me to implement it. Nobody sensible denies that Python's
model is cost-free. But I think the cost is worth it, in the same way that
building houses out of bricks and mortar instead of plastic Lego blocks
makes it really hard to redesign the layout of rooms in the house, but has
other advantages.

(Don't over-analyze the analogy. I'm not suggesting Lisp code is
necessarily as fragile and easy to break as a house made of Lego would be,
or that Python code is safe as houses.)


-- 
Steven.