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

[Terry Reedy]

"Douglas Alan" <doug at alum.mit.edu> wrote in message 
news:lcvedlf3t8.fsf at gaffa.mit.edu...
| "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
|
| > |>oug writes:
|
| >> Scheme has a powerful syntax extension mechanism
|
| > I did not and do not see this as relevant to the main points of my
| > summary above.

The main point of my original post was that the quoted slam at Python was 
based on a misquote of Tim Peters and a mischaracterization of Python and 
that it was out-of-place in the quoted discussion of physics methods and 
that it added nothing to that discussion and should better have been 
omitted.  *All of this has nothing to do with Scheme.*

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 
(Wikipedia's characterization) with more uniform syntax than Python and 
like Python, also with one preferred way to scan sequences (based on my 
memory of Scheme use in the original SICP, co-authored by the same 
purported quote author, and also confirmed by Wikipedia).

I do not consider it a slam at Scheme to compare it with Python and see 
some similarities.  Nor is it a slam at Scheme to suggest that it could 
just as well have been the subject of an unfair slam, if only the slammer 
were not its co-developer ;-)

| [Steele quote deleted]
| Do you now see how Scheme's syntax extension mechanism is relevant?

No.  This just partly explains why Scheme gets away with being minimalist. 
I explicitly referred to the core language as delivered and as used in 
SICP.

tjr