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

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:46:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:

> I think that most people who program in Scheme these days don't do it
> to write practical software.  They either do it to have fun, or for
> academic purposes.  On the other hand, most people who program in
> Python are trying to get real work done.  Which is precisely why I
> program a lot in Python and very little in Scheme these days.  It's
> nice to have the batteries included.

So, once you've succeeded in your campaign to make Python more like
Scheme, what language will you use for getting real work done?

And how long will it take before Schemers start agitating for it to become
more like Scheme?

There is a huge gulf between the claim that Python needs to be more
Scheme-like, and the fact that by your own admission you use Python, not
Scheme, for real work. What benefit will be gained? The ability to
"directly explore some pretty mind-bending stuff ... in a hackerly,
brain-expanding/brain-teaser kind of way"?


-- 
Steven.