TheFlyingDutchman a écrit :
> On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
> I made a complaint about a small design choice.
It's by no mean a "small" design choice.
> I also made it in the
> past tense at least once ("should have done it") and explicitly
> expressed that I knew it wasn't going to happen. Python was created
> based on a language that was designed to make it easy to use by
> beginners.
Most beginners still find Python easy to use AFAICT. At least, I know a
lot of *non* programmers using it.
> Doing so made it a clean and clear language. My preference
> is for everything to be as clean and clear as possible.
Mine too, and that's why I like Python the way it is : syntactic sugar
for the common cases, *and* and easy way to play with lower levels when
necessary.
(snip)
> Jury-rigging new features is going to make the elite happy but very
> likely will be viewed differently by us average programmers.
"us" ? Who is "us" ?
>>change other aspects of the language, such as the ability to graft
>>functions into instances and classes as methods.
>
> Those are elite-type features that make code harder to understand by
> average programmers and probably the elite as well.
Good news, there's a language designed exactly for "average programmers"
that find these kind of features - as well as anything as complex as
operator overloading, metaclasses, descriptors, higher order functions,
multiple inheritance, lazy evaluation, and anything dynamic - way too
"elite". It's named Java. The only drawback is that instead of "elite
features", you'll have to resort to mumbo-jumbo overcomplexified "design
patterns" and write ten times more code to solve the simplest things.
To make a long story short: if you don't understand some "advanced"
Python's features, then just don't use them. But have mercy and let us
"elite programmers" (lol...) use more of Python's power.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
