On 12/25/05, Simon Hengel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I'm envisioning lots of convoluted one-liners which > > are more suitable to a different P-language... :-) > I feel that python is more beautiful and readable, even if you write > short programs.
.. yes but there's a difference, some users of that "other" P-language seem to actually take some sort of ritualistic pride in their ability to condense code down to one convoluted line. The language is also a little more apt at it since it has a great deal of shorthand built in to the core language. Shorter is not necessarily better and I do support his opinion that reinforcing short as good isn't really what most programmers (who care about readability and quality) want to support. > > > How about """best compromize between shortness and readibility > > plus elegance of design"""? > I would love to choose those criteria for future events. But I'm not > aware of any algorithm that is capable of creating a ranking upon them. > Maybe we can come up with a solution. Any ideas? > I think code efficiency would be a better choice. A "longer" program is only worse if its wasting cycles on badly implemented algorithms. Code size is a really bad gauge, If your actually comparing size as in byte-to-byte comparison, you'll be getting a ton of implementations with absolutely no documentation and plenty of one letter variable names. I haven't checked the web site either, are you allowing third party modules to be used? If so, that causes even more problems in the comparison. How are you going to compare those who use a module vs implement it themselves in pure python? -- James Tanis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pycoder.org -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
