|
Since this thread has been revived, I'll take the opportuntiy to make a few personal observations. Bear in mind that these are personal opinions.
Python is more abstract than some of the more traditional languages. This leads to formulating solutions in a way that is more equivalent to human thought processes than those which more traditional languages afford. This is a Good Thang. On the other hand, Python, in its desire to provide this abstraction, has gone overboard. It has undertaken to provide facilities that go beyond natural thought processes, thus requiring dedicated, non-human-like thought.
This thought is opposite from the drop-down-to-Von Neuman-basics. It requires an up-tick to non-human, "Pythonic" basics. There is little value in this, since it doesn't result in increased production at the expense of performance (often a good thing, in terms of bottom-line resource consumption). It results in decreased production with little (if any) gain in ease of thought. It's interesting, sure, in terms of theoretical (but less-than-useful) approaches. I believe that if you plotted bottom-line effectiveness, you would find that Python is beyond the peak to the "right", which is no better (or not much better) than below the peak to the "left".
I also believe that the term, "Pythonic", has lost any real meaning synomynous with "Elegant." I think it's grossly misused.
|