Why "flat is better than nested"?

[Benjamin Kaplan]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:05 AM, kj <no.email at please.post> wrote:
> In <mailman.241.1288036400.2218.python-list at python.org> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
>
>>On 10/25/2010 3:11 PM, kj wrote:
>
>>> Well, it's pretty *enshrined*, wouldn't you say?
>
>>No.
>
>> >  After all, it is part of the standard distribution,
>
>>So is 'import antigravity'
>
> Are you playing with my feelings?
>
> % python
> Python 2.6.1 (r261:67515, Feb 11 2010, 00:51:29)
> [GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5646)] on darwin
>>>> import antigravity
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> ImportError: No module named antigravity
>
> Too bad, I was looking forward to that.
>

Try it in Python 3.

>> > has an easy-to-remember invocation,
>>> etc.  *Someone* must have taken it seriously enough to go through
>>> all this bother.  If it is as trivial as you suggest (and for all
>>> I know you're absolutely right), then let's knock it off its pedestal
>>> once and for all, and remove it from the standard distribution.
>
>>If you are being serious, you are being too serious (as in humorless).
>
> Guilty as charged, both in the "too serious" and the "humorless"
> counts. :/  Blame it on the Asperger's.
>
> My only defense is that, while learning Python over the past year,
> I've had *many* "you've got to be joking" moments while reading
> what's ostensible "serious" Python documents (e.g. PEP 8, PEP 257)
> as well as assorted threads featuring GvR and others involved in
> the design of Python, to the point that sometimes I do have a hard
> time gauging the seriousness of what's considered "good programming"
> / "best practice" in the Python world.
>

This is a programming language named after a British comedy group (not
the snake). There are going to be jokes inserted in lots of otherwise
serious things. Like the standard library.


> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>