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

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2007-06-19, Douglas Alan <doug at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
>> At the end, I added as a *side note* the irony that the
>> purported author was the co-developer of Scheme, another
>> 'minimalist algorithm language 
>
> Sussman's statements are not ironic because Scheme is a
> language that is designed to be extended by the end-user (even
> syntactically), while keeping the core language minimal.  This
> is a rather different design philosophy from that of Python.

Which version Scheme, though? Scheme has only formally had macros
since R4RS, and then only as an extension. Macros are an
extension to Scheme, rather than a founder.

Python could conceivably end up in the same position 15 years
from now, with macros a well-established late-comer, as
generators have become.

> I suggest that you haven't yet grokked the Weltanschauung of
> Scheme. Scheme aficionados would not typically insist that a
> proposed language feature is not good because it violates
> anything like an "only one obvious way" rule.  Rather they
> would argue that if it can be implemented as fuctions and/or
> macros, then it *should* be implemented that way, rather than
> polluting the core language.  The new facility should then be
> included in a library.

The SRFIs are cool.

The last time I dipped my toe into the Scheme newsgroup, I was
overwhelmed by the many impractical discussions of Scheme's dark
corners. Python is either much more free of dark corners, or else
simply doesn't attract that kind of aficionado.

-- 
Neil Cerutti
Let us join David and Lisa in the celebration of their wedding and bring their
happiness to a conclusion. --Church Bulletin Blooper