3 ms·

The only way I see a philosophy as being a broken one if it is founded on false premises, or internally inconsistent (or do you see a different way?). Which is

by y7 10y ago

The only way I see a philosophy as being a broken one if it is founded on false premises, or internally inconsistent (or do you see a different way?). Which is the case with Python and why?

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
A philosophy should also be considered broken if it is not useful for any purpose. By extension, it could also be considered broken if it is needlessly less useful than it could be for its intended purpose.
coldtea 10y ago
Instead of philosophy what you say applies more to logical statements (they are broken if they are founded on false premises or are internally inconsistent). A philosophy is more malleable and ad-hoc than axiomatic logical statements, and it can just be bad because it doesn't offer satisfactory solutions the problems it claims to have tackled, or because it sidesteps certain things, etc. But even that is taking the "broken philosophy" allegation too literally. The author simply means that Python would be a better language if it offered more capable closures and more easy access to functional programming. And why one might argue about the "better", there's no arguing that Python would be more expressive if it did so.
- y7 10y ago
  > And why[while?] one might argue about the "better" This is my point. Python's philosophy isn't "bad" in a universal sense (let alone broken). It's just that the author has a different philosophy for programming languages himself. And I find it short-sighted to regard other philosophies as "bad" or "flawed", simply because they do not match your own.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Yes, I meant to write "while" (my comments are usually hastily written while waiting some build to finish and full of typos). >And I find it short-sighted to regard other philosophies as "bad" or "flawed", simply because they do not match your own. Sure, but isn't a "all philosophies are equal" also misleading? Some philosophies can be inherently worse than one's own.

by y7 10y ago

The only way I see a philosophy as being a broken one if it is founded on false premises, or internally inconsistent (or do you see a different way?). Which is the case with Python and why?

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

A philosophy should also be considered broken if it is not useful for any purpose. By extension, it could also be considered broken if it is needlessly less useful than it could be for its intended purpose.

coldtea 10y ago

Instead of philosophy what you say applies more to logical statements (they are broken if they are founded on false premises or are internally inconsistent). A philosophy is more malleable and ad-hoc than axiomatic logical statements, and it can just be bad because it doesn't offer satisfactory solutions the problems it claims to have tackled, or because it sidesteps certain things, etc. But even that is taking the "broken philosophy" allegation too literally. The author simply means that Python would be a better language if it offered more capable closures and more easy access to functional programming. And why one might argue about the "better", there's no arguing that Python would be more expressive if it did so.

y7 10y ago
> And why[while?] one might argue about the "better" This is my point. Python's philosophy isn't "bad" in a universal sense (let alone broken). It's just that the author has a different philosophy for programming languages himself. And I find it short-sighted to regard other philosophies as "bad" or "flawed", simply because they do not match your own.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Yes, I meant to write "while" (my comments are usually hastily written while waiting some build to finish and full of typos). >And I find it short-sighted to regard other philosophies as "bad" or "flawed", simply because they do not match your own. Sure, but isn't a "all philosophies are equal" also misleading? Some philosophies can be inherently worse than one's own.