Paul Prescod <paul / prescod.net> wrote:
> On Philosophy:
> ==============
> 
> Is this really how a Ruby programmer would characterize POLS? To be 
> honest, the way you state it, I wouldn't be interested in _either_ 
> Python or Ruby. A language that tries to cater to everyone's tastes is
> doomed to failure. Sounds like the popular image of Ada!

Hrm.. perhaps the description I've given is a little silly. It's one
thing to be flexible and expressive, but another to try to please
*everybody*.


> As far as "Only One Way To Do It." I'm sure that the way you describe 
> Python is not how a Python programmer would! ;) Let me try:
> 
> "Only one way to do it."
> 
> "Also known in computer science literature as "orthogonality", Python 
> attempts to reduce to a minimum the variant ways of "spelling" a
> common construct. This improves the regularity of code, reduces the
> size of the Python language and makes reading other people's code
> easier."
> 
> But I don't expect you to put in such a Python-positive spin!

I'm happy to give a Python-positive spin. I'm sorry if you feel I've
been negative about it. I'll redo the philosophy bit after more
comments here (so I get it right).


> If Python is "rigid" what does that say about Java, COBOL, Pascal, C
> and other similar languages that are much more strict than Python?

They're horribly strict. :)


> Re: type and class. Consistency of method use is _unrelated_ to the 
> issue of type and class. It has always been the case that Python types
> could have methods. The array type has always had methods. If you want
> to knock Python for being inconsistent about functions versus methods
> it would be more straightforward just to do so.

True. I'll fix that.

-- 
Greg McIntyre
greg / puyo.cjb.net
http://puyo.cjb.net