The Python community is very vocal and explicit about the conventions developers are expected to follow, more so than any other language I'm aware of: PEP 8, Zen of Python, non-stop critiques about whether some code is "pythonic" enough.
Yeah, that's the "this is the way we do things" part, but that's a different issue. Things like PEP-8 and a measure of how "Pythonic" something is helps make one of Python's biggest strengths, the "batteries included" easier to accomplish and easier to understand, because there is a consistent standard. Of course, not all code, even in the stdlib, is up to that standard, but it's more consistent than a lot of libraries you'll find.
The point I was making, and the difference from a lot of language communities I've seen is that there is little of this hyperbolic "That's not even possible in [insert-language-here]" nonsense. The Python programmers I tend to interact with don't really mind if you don't use Python, because at the end of the day, almost every language has the necessary features to Get Stuff Done.
Yeah, that's the "this is the way we do things" part, but that's a different issue. Things like PEP-8 and a measure of how "Pythonic" something is helps make one of Python's biggest strengths, the "batteries included" easier to accomplish and easier to understand, because there is a consistent standard. Of course, not all code, even in the stdlib, is up to that standard, but it's more consistent than a lot of libraries you'll find.
The point I was making, and the difference from a lot of language communities I've seen is that there is little of this hyperbolic "That's not even possible in [insert-language-here]" nonsense. The Python programmers I tend to interact with don't really mind if you don't use Python, because at the end of the day, almost every language has the necessary features to Get Stuff Done.