Python's simplicity philosophy (was Re: reduce()--what is it good for?)

[Robin Becker]

In article <Os3sb.4625$9_.212870 at news1.tin.it>, Alex Martelli
<aleax at aleax.it> writes
>Robin Becker wrote:
>   ...
>> This whole thread is reminiscent of vi vs emacs or an os war or similar.
>> It's a pity that people with a preferred style should be so dogmatic
>> that they want to remove language features to prevent others using them.
>
>Python's essence is simplicity and uniformity.  Having extra features
>in the language and built-ins runs directly counter to that.

no disagreement, reduce is in line with that philosophy sum is a
shortcut and as others have said is less general.

>
>> The whole 'only one way to do it' concept is almost certainly wrong.
>
>Bingo!  You disagree with the keystone of Python's philosophy.  Every
>other disagreement, quite consequently, follows from this one.
>

not so, I agree that there ought to be at least one way to do it.

>Want "maximal freedom to express algorithms"?  You can choose among

... you may be right, but I object to attempts to restrict my existing
freedoms at the expense of stability of Python as a whole.

>But can't you let us have *ONE* language that's designed according

I am not attempting to restrict anyone or change anyone's programming
style. I just prefer to have a stable language.
-- 
Robin Becker