Fernando wrote: > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:23:05 GMT, Peter Seibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Looks like the BDFL is planning to take lambda, reduce, filter, and > >map out of Python in the next big rev of Python (so called Python > >3000): > > > > <http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196> > > Basically, it says that it will get rid of the explicit map, filter > and reduce and substitute them by some syntactic sugar that uses them > implicitly. That's ok, and not a big deal. > > It will also get rid of lambda, and it's not a great loss, since > python's version is so limited that it's almost useless. Besides, > given the syntactic sugar used to replace map, reduce and filter, > there's no real need for lambda in the most usual cases. > > The real problem with Python is that it has been very successful as a > scripting language in the static-typing/C/C++ world. Those > programmers, instead of adapting their evil ways to Python, and > realizing the advantages of a dynamic language, are influencing > Python's design and forcing it into the static-typing mold. Python is > going the C++ way: piling feature upon feature, adding bells and > whistles while ignoring or damaging its core design.
You're wrong about design: http://www.artima.com/intv/pyscale.html Quoting Guido: The first sound bite I had for Python was, "Bridge the gap between the shell and C." So I never intended Python to be the primary language for programmers. > > The new 'perlified' syntax for decorators, the new static type bonds > and the weird decision to kill lambda instead of fixing it are good > examples that show that Python is going the wrong way. What used to > be a cool language will soon be an interpreted C/C++ without any > redeeming value. A real pity... Yeah, that was a good time. After a nice bridge between the shell and C was built they never ceased piling feature upon feature and kept adding bells and wristles. Serge. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
