On 7/1/10 7:44 AM, WANG Cong wrote:
On 07/01/10 13:49, Stephen Hansen<me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote:
It may not be "the" primary concern, but elegance certainly is *a*
primary concern.
I concur.
Its not explicitly stated, but it is the Zen 0. This is further
supported by its implied presence in many of the Axioms and Truths of
the Bots.
"Beautiful is better then ugly"; and then the praise of the explicit,
of simplicity, of readability.
Elegance is a prime concern of Python, as it is the natural result of
the Doctrines of Pythonicity. It may not be stated as a rule, but it a
the reward that we are given for following the path of enlightenment.
Isn't elegance somewhat equalent to perfection?
IMHO, if a language is perfect, it is elegant.
No.
However, in the other sub-thread, you seem to be against being perfect
for Python. :)
Yes.
Perfection, if it exists (it does not), would probably have the property
of elegance. Unless by 'perfect' we mean, 'perfectly models this certain
paradigm of thought', in which case 'perfect' is really very limited
when someone wants to go do something with a different paradigm all
together.
Technical elegance (as opposed to like, the elegance of silk) is the
clear execution of a thought or process in a concise, simple way.
It's utterly impossible for any language to be perfect; no language can
possibly express all thought and processes of thought in an ideal form.
Every language will have things it is better at expressing then others--
thoughts and ways of thinking that flow better from it then others.
A language can be elegant though (I don't even think Python is: it just
tries to be): but not everything you do with it will then be elegant itself.
Elegance happens in the specific: a certain solution, a key design of a
system, there you find elegance. It doesn't exist in the general.
--
... Stephen Hansen
... Also: Ixokai
... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
