On: Functional Programming in Python [pdf]

[zepolud]

Funny how things turned out. I still remember this post[1], it was profoundly disappointing to see Guido's way of thinking. Much of the damage was reversed but it still left an indelible impression that there's a lack of vision for what's going to be important if the language is to stay relevant in the future.

[1] http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196

[currysausage → zepolud]

There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it. [1]

You may not agree with it, but it's a vision.

[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

[svisser → zepolud]

Removing features does not mean there is a lack of vision.

The purpose of Python is not the same as, say, Haskell.

Design decisions should therefore be viewed as such - it's not about a steady increase of functional features and a decrease of procedural features.

[mewwts → zepolud]

I actually find his arguments rather convincing, even though I'm partial to a functional approach to programming, myself.

[tarmil → mewwts]

Some are still pretty bullshit though.

> Why drop lambda? Most Python users are unfamiliar with Lisp or Scheme, so the name is confusing

To which I'd reply: Why drop class? Most Python users are unfamiliar with C++ or Java, so the name is confusing.

[JustSomeNobody → tarmil]

Are they? I'd probably argue just the opposite, that most python developers are very familiar with C++ or (most of them) Java.

[GFK_of_xmaspast → zepolud]

I remember seeing that post and having it be the first time I thought "huh, does van Rossum know what he's doing" but it certainly wasn't the last.