Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> > Different programming styles are appropriate for different > >>> > tasks, different times and different places, different people. > >>> > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe > >>> > that one style of programming fits all situations. > >>> If I read you right, what you're saying is that hammmers aren't good > >>> at driving screws. I don't think anyone would argue about that. > >> No, the analogy is more like this. Python is hammer that comes > >> in green or blue. The hammer's developers say (perhaps with > >> some reason) that cool colors like green and blue are the best > >> colors because they promote calm when used. Calm hammerers > >> are more productive and less violent. My work is > >> repairing the inside of dark water tanks. It is hard to see blue > >> and green hammers, and to find them if I put them down. > >> I suggest that Python have the option of red hammers. > > > > So you're suggesting a fundamental change to the nature of > > Python. It's inherently a blue/green language. Making it available in > > Red violates the spirit and philosphy of the language, which is why: > > Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with. > > The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things > that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for > things that enable working in the python philosophy. > > Why did it take so long before a ternary operator was introduced? > Because it was thought it could be too easily abused. The fact > that there was also good use for a ternary operator within the > spirit of Python was regarded as less important. > > >> The Python people respond with horror, pointing out the problems > >> with red hammers. > > > > In other words, there are reasons that python doesn't come in red, and > > they will gladly tell you what they are. > > > >> Regarding the differences between hammers and screwdrivers... > >> When a screwdriver is appropriate I use a screwdriver. If I > >> need to write code that does a large amount of CPU intensive > >> number crunching, I use C, not Python. > > > > Yes. And if you need a red hammmer, you should get a red hammer, not > > use red spray paint on one that wasn't designed to be red. Just > > because *you* don't see how providing a red option violates the > > philosophy of python doesn't mean that it doesn't do so. > > Well this seems to be the main conflict between those who would > like Python to go a bit further and those that oppose it. > > Should the priority be to enable python's philosophy or should > it be the priority to limit python to only allow it's philosophy. > > One groups seems to think that python's spirit is not broken > by allowing things that seem counter to it, as long as people > can without much trouble, work within that spirit. > > An other group seems to think that any allowance to disgress > from python's spirit is an assault on it. > And exactly what is "python's spirit/philosophy" ? It seems to me that they are often used in a liberal way, just to support one's argument that whatever is not in the CURRENT python should not be there.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
