4 ms·
Agreed. Python has also pushed the mantra: "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it". Don't get me wrong, I love lisp, but it give
by wybiral 10y ago
Agreed. Python has also pushed the mantra: "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it".
Don't get me wrong, I love lisp, but it gives you the power to essentially create your own domain-specific language. A power that comes with both positive and negative side effects depending on the situation.
- meddlepal 10y agoWhich honestly if you want a block-style Lisp, basically you're asking for Ruby. And the differences between Ruby and Python IMO aren't that big. Edit: Heh, just realized there is another article on the front page arguing this.
- bthornbury 10y agoThis is somewhat against the zen of python, but then again "Beautiful is better than ugly." :)
- wybiral 10y agoIt's a neat concept. I also agree that the lambda statement in Python is ugly, but actually using this in a Python project feels wrong. Not that you couldn't call it a "transpiler" and consider it a new dialect of Python... Hey, the Javascript community gets away with it, why not Python? Also, while I can't think of a normal use case, it is possible that someone intended to use (a, b, c) > (x, y, z) as a tuple comparison. ">>" or something might be safer.
- bthornbury 10y agoI agree in it's current state it's more of a novelty than something intended for serious use. (Imagine debugging someone else's code with source rewriting 0_0) Especially with the discrepancy you pointed out with tuple comparison. I think that it could get to a state where if the debugging was figured out, and the abstractions/usability became nicer that it could be have some serious use though. Mostly the intention with this was to get something working, that can be iterated on if it makes sense.