On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a > > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone > > > knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about. > > > > Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better, > > because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me. > > Which is globally counterproductive.
Whatever. My point was that your perfect language isn't necessarily my perfect language; and while I understand your reasons for wanting Python to be part of base, it would be just asking for a Ruby or Haskell or lisp or whatnot lover to ask for their language of choice to be part of base as well. While I don't like the bloat it brings with it, I can see the point of having a scripting language in base; after all, some things can be coded easier in a scripting language, and bash has nowhere near enough features to fill that purpose. But one scripting language is already more than enough; adding more would be crossing the line between 'sensible compromise' and 'bloat'. I'm sorry perl scares you away; but that's hardly an argument for wanting to have more bloat in base. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
