Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise

[Jeff Schwab]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
>> | Yes, this seems to be the Python way:  For each popular feature of some
>> | other language, create a less flexible Python feature that achieves the
>> | same effect in the most common cases (e.g. lambda to imitate function
>> | literals, or recursive assignment to allow x = y = z).
>>
>> This is a rather acute observation.  Another example is generators versus 
>> full coroutines (or continuations).  Guido is content to capture 80% of the 
>> practical use cases of a feature.  He never intended Python to be a 100% 
>> replace-everything language.
> 
> I don't understand the lambda example due to not being sure what Jeff
> means by "function literals".  But in other languages, lambda is the
> basic primitive, and "def" or equivalent is syntax sugar.

Sorry, I didn't know what else to call them except "lambdas."  I meant 
the bare code blocks you can use in Perl, or what Java tries to achieve 
via anonymous inner classes.  So to use the Perl example:  If you want 
to sort a list using some arbitrary snippet of code as the comparison 
function, you can write:

     sort { code to compare $a and $b } @elements

This isn't really "native" in C++ either:

     http://www.boost.org/doc/html/lambda.html

What language do you have in mind, in which lambda is more basic than 
named definitions?  Are you coming from a functional language background?