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

[Andy Freeman]

On Jun 26, 10:03 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> > Map doesn't work on generators or iterators because they're not part
> > of the common lisp spec, but if someone implemented them as a library,
> > said library could easily include a map that handled them as well.
>
> Right, more scattered special purpose kludges instead of a powerful
> uniform interface.

Huh?  The interface could continue to be (map ...).

Python's for statement relies on the fact that python is mostly object
oriented and many of the predefined types have an iterator interface.
Lisp lists and vectors currently aren't objects and very few of the
predefined types have an iterator interface.

It's easy enough to get around the lack of objectness and add the
equivalent of an iterator iterface, in either language.  The fact that
lisp folks haven't bothered suggests that this isn't a big enough
issue.

The difference is that lisp users can easily define python-like for
while python folks have to wait for the implementation.

Syntax matters.