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

[Douglas Alan]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:

> > You are ignoring the fact that

> This prefactory clause is false and as such it turns what was a true 
> statement into one that is not.  Better to leave off such ad hominisms and 
> stick with the bare true statement.

You went on about how Gerry Sussman's opinion is a crock and how he
should look in the mirror, and then you get bent out of shape over the
phrase, "you are ignoring"???  For the record, "you are ignoring" is
not an ad hominem; "anyone who doesn't know how to spell 'ad hominem'
has the intelligence of a mealworm" is an ad hominem.

> > 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.  Python has powerful extension mechanisms too, but
> comparing the two languages on this basis is a whole other topic.

How do you know that Prof. Sussman doesn't consider the macro issue to
be essential?  Certainly other Lisp aficionados do, as does, I believe
Guy Steele, the other inventor of Scheme.

It appears to me that you are missing the point that having a
minimalist disposition towards programming language design does not
preclude believing that such languages should have features that are
missing from Python.

|>oug