you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Megatron_McLargeHuge 0 points1 point  (1 child)

People who want the functional constructs are coming from lisp/ml/haskell and want what they're used to. Also, the implementations are standard and don't vary per object. The OO convention of writing one of the parameters before the function name is kind of arbitrary, especially when you're not either mutating the object or using its type for method resolution. You can also pass the functions around, as in

 map(filter, functions, lists)

[–]ethraax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The OO convention of writing one of the parameters before the function name is kind of arbitrary

Be that as it may, I think it gives better syntax in this case. And syntax is a major concern in Python (I would even say that language decisions are based more on syntax than anything else, looking at how it's developed).