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

[Josiah Carlson]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
>>> Not tail calls, in general, no.
>> Sorry, how does that work? You're suggesting that there is an algorithm
>> which the compiler could follow to optimize away tail-recursion, but human
>> beings can't follow the same algorithm?
>>
>> Now I'm confused.
> 
> The usual compiler method is to translate the code into
> continuation-passing style and thereby gain tail-recursion
> optimization automagically.  Of course a human could do the same thing
> in principle, but it would result in insanely difficult-to-write,
> unreadable and unmaintainable code.  At a higher level, there are no
> Python features whatsoever, either existing or proposed, that couldn't
> be eliminated and left to the human.  Iterators?  While loops?  Who
> needs 'em?  We could all go back to programming in machine code.  But
> Python is supposed to make programming easier, not harder.  

Thanks to Richie Hindle, there exists a goto for Python implementation 
that makes such things quite trivial (assuming one doesn't like 
"abusing" break/continue/else).  http://entrian.com/goto/  (which, by 
the way, is the best April-fools joke ever)


  - Josiah