Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Jordan a écrit :
>> I don't really mind, what you think about my response.  Python will suffer
>> from it as little as it will suffer from your complaints:  These things
>> will not change, whatever any of us says about them.  So this discussion
>> unlikely to produce any new insight, especially because this as been
>> discussed over and over again in the past, without any effect on Python.  
> 
> You're right, of course. Because Python is in so many ways what I'm
> looking for in a language, I transform it in my mind to my own,
> personal ideal, close to the real existing language but with what I
> consider to be the imperfections removed.

I guess you'll find a lot of us guilty here too - but do we really agree 
on what we consider to be "imperfections" ?-)

(snip)

> I was trying not to change explicit self, or even != (which has a much
> better case.) I was trying to ask the community to reconsider a
> premise that the language is built around. Explicit is actually kinda
> annoying a lot of the time, viz., java. This is about social and
> philosophical adjustments, not technical ones.
> 

"explicit-is-etc" - just like the remaining of Python's zen - is a 
general philosophy statement, not an absolute rule. Another quote states 
that practicality beats purity.

So yes, Python has warts, and one can't get away dogmatically quoting 
Python's zen. Even if I'm sometimes myself guilty here, it's certainly 
worth taking time to better address criticism, either by aknowledging 
effective warts when someone points them out or by explaining (or 
pointing to explanations of) the unusual parts of Python's design.

Now since most of the times, criticisms expressed here fall in the 
second category, we're happy to learn you'll now take appropriate action 
here and help us keep c.l.py a newbie-friendly place !-)