3 ms·
I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. No, I just keep pointing back to the idea that there should be one
by at_a_remove 3y ago
I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed.
No, I just keep pointing back to the idea that there should be one obvious way to do "it," whatever it is you need. As people vote for their favorite whatever from another language, the number of options of how to do something increases, drastically. The reason for a "language of mostly idioms" (maybe not to "Shaka, when the walls fell" level) is that we must read and maintain our code.
I am a Perl refugee. It had the opposite philosophy: many ways to skin a cat. The result was a write-once, read-only-in-abject-terror language. You never knew if someone decided it was Code Golf Day and they wanted to try to cram in a dozen things into a single string of executable line noise.
I think Python is (slowly) abandoning some of the PEP 20 precepts one hardly-objectionable feature at a time.
- da39a3ee 3y ago> I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. If you won't say what you're talking about then please stop commenting here.
- abbadadda 3y agoI think you missed the point re: bikeshedding
- da39a3ee 3y agoThe way that gp said "tactical" indicates that their interest is in winning personal battles rather than promoting interesting community discussion.
- at_a_remove 3y agoI was hoping for forestall pointless discussions. Any single feature recently added would find an advocate and a defender. Therefore, selecting one of the bunch is a mistake because it does not focus on the actual problem: the pack of features, plural, getting added in. It is like someone dumping a ton of sand in your driveway. "Surely you cannot object to this grain of sand. Or that one. Or this one over here." The problem is in the aggregate.