Some "pythonic" suggestions for Python

[Frank Samuelson]

Carl Banks wrote:

>> "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to keep
>> referring to the manual.  Things work the way I expect them to work.
> 
> Really, should we be taking suggestions from someone who needs a manual 
> to recall the syntax of the def statement?
> 
> What you say is correct in principle, but it's senseless to apply it to 
> something you use every day, like def.  It's like arguing that irregular 
> verbs make speech less productive.

They do for people who speak foreign languages.  It's always easier
for me to remember Spanish verbs that conjugate regularly.   And based
on the speaking snafus of my French coworker, I would say that it is
true for her English too!

Likewise, consistency helps me remember the syntax of the
seven or so programming languages that I use regularly.


>> Unfortunately that appears the case. Though backward compatibility is
>> not an issue (3.0 breaks stuff), I have learned that there are many
>> pythonistas who make up lots of arbitrary reasons not to change
>> anything, even if it is for the better.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that to you, "arbitrary" is an synonym for 
> "something not pure enough for my personal taste".
> 

That was the point that I was trying to make to the previous poster,
who called my suggestions "arbitrary",
but who never actually addressed the suggestions.


> The "defects in productivity" 
> in Python aren't going to be "fixed", 

That doesn't sound very promising, though I'm not sure whom you are
quoting.


> 
> Carl Banks