Alex Martelli wrote: > Having to give functions a name places no "ceiling on expressiveness", > any more than, say, having to give _macros_ a name.
And what about having to give numbers a name? > Yes, we are, because the debate about why it's better for Python (as a > language used in real-world production systems, *SCALABLE* to extremely > large-scale ones) to *NOT* be insanely extensible and mutable is a > separate one -- Python's uniformity of style allows SCALABILITY of > teams, and teams-of-teams I think this kind of language scalability is most important for Google, see below. > if your need SCALE, well then, PYTHON IS SCALABLE, and will remain a > *SIMPLE, CLEAN, LITTLE AND POWERFUL LANGUAGE* (letting nobody do > anything INSANE to it;-) while scaling up to whatever size of project(s) > you need (including systems so large... But honestly, isn't this scalability a result of the data processing model you use, which is language independent? My point is that when you have such a well scaling data processing model, most languages scale well on the "data" and "load" axes, so you pick your language based on how well it scales on the "teams" and "features" axes. You seem to claim that there is something in Python that lets it scale well on "data" and "load", and is not related to "teams" and "features", and also not related to Google's data processing model. Can you tell me what it is? Best regards Tomasz -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
