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

[Kay Schluehr]

On 15 Jun., 22:58, Douglas Alan <d... at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> For instance, I believe that Python is now too big, and that much of
> what is in the language itself should be replaced with more general
> Scheme-like features.
> Then a good macro mechanism should be
> implemented so that all the conveniences features of the language can
> be implemented via macro definitions in the standard library.

And why sould anyone reimplement the whole standard library using
macro reductions? Because this is the "one obvious way to do it" for
people who are addicted to Scheme?