Op 2005-01-18, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> Op 2005-01-18, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >>>Python is *designed* as a dynamic language. I wish you would embrace >>>this aspect rather than continually trying to shoehorn it into a static >>>straitjacket. Efficiency is good. Flexibility is better. >> >> >> Flexibility is better? IMO flexibilty implies more than one way to do >> things. But that is a big no no here in c.l.py. >> > Become one with the language.
That is difficult if I hear so many contradictionary things about it. Sometimes I have the feeling that the Zen of python is more for poet like people, not for the extreme analytical kind, like me. >> I also see a lot of remarks that go: "Don't do this!" when some of >> the more dynamic aspects are talked about, because there are >> security risks involved. One of the results was that I ended up >> writing a parser for some kind of game instead of just dumping the >> structure in textual form and doing an eval of the file when reading >> it in. But if I need a parser I could just as well used a static >> language. >> > Wow, you mean you actually *took* some advice? :-) Perhaps this whole > thing has arisen because you feel you were badly advised. It looks as > though your programming skill level might have been underestimated. Your > ability to wring an argument to a merciless death could never be. Again the problem is the many contradictionary arguments I get from this group. My impression is that any time I do a suggestion here or make a remark sooner or later someone will quote one of the rules of python and will consider the matter closed by that. But those rules can be used to support or reject any proposition. If someone proposes to introduce an exception, the rule quoted is: No exception is so importan to break the rule. If someone proposes to make python more consistent, the rule quoted is: practicallity beats purity. So in the end I get the feelings that the strengths of arguments doesn't matter here. If someone doesn't like a proposition, he just looks for the rule it will break (and since the rules contradict each other he will find one) and produce it as the final argument for why the proposal won't work. >> I'm beginning to guess the dynamic aspect of python is overrated. >> > You shouldn't have to guess, and it isn't. > > Certain of its dynamic aspects do demand a certain care rather than > casual usage, however, which leads to rules of thumb like "don't use > mutables as dictionary keys". Yes, of course you can, but to a newbie > your behavior (it seems to me) is a bit like this: But I am not talking to newbees. I am talking about documentation that is in the language reference and things that I'm told. If it would just be the tutorial and like wise documents that stated to not use mutables as dictionary keys I could live with that. But if the language reference suggest the same you can no longer claim it is for the newbee's sake. > Me (to newbie): "... And, of course, you want to be careful not to shoot > yourself in the foot." > You: ":Well, actually, if you use a .22 and aim very carefully between > the big toe and its neighbor there's a 96% chance that you will only > suffer serious burns". > > So, please understand, I'm not trying to say that (most of) your > utterances are untrue, or question your knowledge of the Python > environment. I'm just trying to bring the day closer when you will be > able to watch me write something that's only 99% true and happily walk > away without writing a thousand-word essay on the remaining 1% case. Well the problem may be I don't consider the person you are talking to as a newbee. Just the fact that he asks a question that marks him as a newbee in python doesn't mean he is a newbee programmer. But you do have a point that I have a tendency to put salt on any snail. I'll try to restrain myself a bit more in the future. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
