Ravi Teja wrote: > You blogged on Django. Let's use that. Don't you think model creation > in Django can be represented better, given that it is done often > enough?
nope, because 1) it's not done very often, and 2) the existing syntax is already very minimal, and defined in terms of a language that I already understand. there might be cognitive theories that argue that the length of the symbols used to describe something is more important than the symbols you use, and how they can be "chunked" by the brain, but sturgeon's law applies to cognitive scientists too ;-) > Since you are on thread and are a prominent and involved member of the > Python community, I would like it if you (or any such other) can > provide feedback on the rest of my previous post rather than be > dismissive by just a small portion of it. Perhaps, that will give me > some insight how these language design decisions are rationally made (I > am not strictly a programmer by profession, much less a language > designer). see Ian's posts for some excellent discussion. </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
