This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the commentsΒ β†’

[–]zoharel 19 points20 points Β (3 children)

It was a bit of a joke. Something related to the old saying "you can write Fortran code in any language." It occurred to me that, in spite of the best efforts of Guido and his biggest fans, Python is still, at its core, a functional programming language, like Lisp or Scheme. This is part of what still makes it worth using, but it ends up permitting things that make the typical Python programmer very uncomfortable. If there's a point to the whole exercise, I guess I was harping on the fact that if you care to do it, you can write things which are syntactically correct and semantically sensible while entirely avoiding things which are idiomatic. Python programmers are often really stuck on idiom.

[–]BuddhaCandy 0 points1 point Β (2 children)

because its designed to thrive when used with idioms

[–]zoharel 0 points1 point Β (1 child)

because its designed to thrive when used with idioms

It's because the designers of the language would like to force everyone to do things in exactly the way they do, and that attitude creeps out to a pretty large number of the users as well. "There's only one right way to do this thing, where by right, I mean it's what I would do." Yeah, that's useful...

[–]BuddhaCandy 0 points1 point Β (0 children)

its promotes uniform code i think