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

[Antoon Pardon]

On 2007-06-23, Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:21:14 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
>
>> I.e., I could write a new object system for Lisp faster than I could
>> even begin to fathom the internal of CPython.  Not only that, I have
>> absolutely no desire to spend my valuable free time writing C code.
>> I'd much rather be hacking in Python, thank you very much.
>
> Which is very valuable... IF you care about writing a new object system. I
> don't, and I think most developers don't, which is why Lisp-like macros
> haven't taken off.

I find this is a rather sad kind of argument. It seems to imply that
python is only for problems that are rather common or similar to
those. If most people don't care about the kind of problem you
are working on, it seems from this kind of argument that python
is not the language you should be looking at.

-- 
Antoon Pardon