3 ms·
I agree with you, I felt the same when reading the article. It feels that Python's design is deeply at fault here, it is actively harming people's perception of
by a-nikolaev 8y ago
I agree with you, I felt the same when reading the article. It feels that Python's design is deeply at fault here, it is actively harming people's perception of anonymous functions, which is the opposite of what a supposedly educational multi-paradigm-capable language should be doing.
- eesmith 8y agoIt also doesn't have tail-recursion or macros. There are many who also regard that lack as a deep design flaw. There never was a goal in Python development to support all programming paradigms. How do you distinguish between "design flaw" and "different design goal than what you want"?
- a-nikolaev 8y agoI think, it was an example of intentional hostile design (say, see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZLB8CyPbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZLB8CyPbM for what I mean). All, seemingly for the sake of that "only-one-way-to-do-things" goal. EDIT: (Van Rossum's own explanation of why he thinks lambda's design is okay: https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 )
- eesmith 8y agoDo you have any evidence for your hypothesis about hostile design? The phrase, by the way, is "one obvious way".
- a-nikolaev 8y agoGuido van Rossum said that many times that he does not like functional primitives. It is pretty well documented in his own writing that he had no intention of making functional programming very convenient in the language.