Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:27:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > This is only a feature for perl maniacs. A language that requires a
> > > specific coding style is better, because it makes possible for anyone
> > > knowing the language to hack easily python code he doesn't know about.
> >
> > Hah. A language that does not require a specific coding style is better,
> > because it allows me to work as is the most efficient for me.
>
> Which is globally counterproductive.
Whatever. My point was that your perfect language isn't necessarily my
perfect language; and while I understand your reasons for wanting Python
to be part of base, it would be just asking for a Ruby or Haskell or
lisp or whatnot lover to ask for their language of choice to be part of
base as well.
While I don't like the bloat it brings with it, I can see the point of
having a scripting language in base; after all, some things can be coded
easier in a scripting language, and bash has nowhere near enough
features to fill that purpose. But one scripting language is already
more than enough; adding more would be crossing the line between
'sensible compromise' and 'bloat'.
I'm sorry perl scares you away; but that's hardly an argument for
wanting to have more bloat in base.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: