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

[Douglas Alan]

Michele Simionato <michele.simionato at gmail.com> writes:

> Been there, done that. So what? Your example will not convince any
> Pythonista.

I'm a Pythonista, and it convinces me.

> The Pythonista expects Guido to do the language job and the
> application developer to do the application job.

I'm happy to hear that there is a brain washing device built into
Python that provides all Python programmers with exactly the same
mindset, as that will certainly aid in having a consistent look and
feel to all Python code.

> Consider for instance generators.

Yes, consider them!  If Python had first class continuations (like
Ruby does) and macros in 1991, it could have had generators in 1992,
rather than in 2002.  (I implemented generators using macros and stack
groups for Lisp Machines in 1983, and it took me all of a few hours.)

> In Python they are already implemented in the core language and the
> application developer does not care at all about implementing them.

And if they were implemented as macros in a library, then the
application developer doesn't have to care about implementing them
either.

> In Scheme I am supposed to implement them myself with continuations,
> but why should I do that, except as a learning exercise?

Well, when I get around to giving my sage advice to the Scheme
community, I'll let them know that generators need to be in the
standard library, not a roll-your-own exercise.

> It is much better if competent people are in charge of the very low
> level stuff and give me just the high level tools.

Even many competent people don't want to hack in the implementation
language and have to understand the language implementation internals
to design and implement language features.  By your argument,
Pythonistas might as well insist that the entire standard library be
coded in C.

> BTW, there are already Python-like languages with macros
> (i.e. logix) and still nobody use them, including people with a
> Scheme/Lisp background. That /should be telling you something.

It only tells me what I've known for at least a couple decades now --
that languages live and die on issues that often have little to do
with the language's intrinsic merits.

|>oug