4 ms·
> There's no need to include two functions when one will do. This is not pragmatism, it's laziness. If providing two slightly different ways to do something is
by yawaramin 4y ago
> There's no need to include two functions when one will do. This is not pragmatism, it's laziness.
If providing two slightly different ways to do something is laziness, then pretty much every language is guilty of that. Also, Larry Wall: 'Laziness is a virtue' ;-)
- jolux 4y agoBut again that's not a justification. There's no reason for there to be two functions here, other than that it's easier for the implementers. I'm being serious when I say I don't think I've ever seen another standard library that prioritizes ease of maintenance over ease of consumption. Quite possible that I'm missing something! Maybe Common Lisp or another language nobody uses?
- yawaramin 4y agoWell, you're extrapolating from one example where the standard library doesn't behave as you want, and characterizing the entire library as 'lazy'. I don't agree with that characterization, and as I already said, the justification has been given. You just don't agree with it, that's fine. It's still a valid justification.