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

[Michele Simionato]

On Jun 22, 7:54 pm, Douglas Alan <d... at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> The proof is in the pudding for anyone who has seen the advantages it
> brings to Lisp.  As Paul Graham points out, it's hard to look up and
> see the advantages of what is up there in a more powerful language.
> It's only easy to look down and see the disadvantages of what is
> missing from a less powerful language.  To understand the advantages,
> one has to be willing to climb the hill and take in the view.

Right. However you fail to recognize that there are people here with a
good
understanding of Lisp and its macrology that still prefer Python over
Lisp.
I will go even further and say that the utility of macros is inversely
proportional
to the power of a language: the more the language is powerful, the
less macros
are useful. Really powerful languages (say Haskell, just not to be too
Python-centric)
do not need macros.

Provocative-but-with-a-grain-of-salt-in-it-yours,

      Michele Simionato