Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!194.109.133.84.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=CYK03idzzI31Q66M4dDSwP/FMiUYrNE7zXlMaOQXbzUddhNXUmEi+41Rkxb2+ijxTl duCBxUkoUBI7GXU3eN30Nk3kui4iN5yKizCScojl9AavhcXlibZDBpU+owq9F4oLQrMc bj5c+w3AnOv/VMPrbrBMrYAM1x4rfP8Tv1fGU=
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com>
To: <python-list@python.org>
References: <80d59383-36a3-4744-85c4-1a0577f1d3a6@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com><BANLkTinviKm4A232=niyBCsqpKeazyWm=g@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTik+iBBgGBfZruE4BLoq0pz01sj9BQ@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTi=dyW-ZW=bEfSZmsHDjzo34+3rHrA@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTim0JVK-4yMxbjV+MC6TSh3k8tYPhg@mail.gmail.com><9CDC4B2CD1F445E994119A50F65155DF@teddy><BANLkTi=5RytpHpP1ausX9n064vkhDHz+FA@mail.gmail.com><12225671E9654FECB49613D915FAEC19@teddy>	<irbn0t$t8d$1@dough.gmane.org><21A740B7AC6644248476DFADDF726C73@octavian>	<ircvbn$nlu$1@dough.gmane.org><629DAC3611EA49B0A36BCF70151CDE2F@octavian> <ire4b9$afh$1@dough.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development?
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:05:28 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1984.1306177554.9059.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 52
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:6090

From: "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu>
> On 5/23/2011 4:49 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>=20
>> But let's remember from what this discussion started. This is not a
>> Python critique, because each language has its own ways.
>> I just wanted to show that the fact that "there is more than one way =
to
>> do it" in Perl and that "there is a single way" in Python are just
>> buzzwords,
>=20
> Agreed. The latter is simply incorrect for Python and I don't know why =

> people say that. The statement from the Zen of Python is as follows:
> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do =
it."
> where 'it' is some reasonable common operation. This is a statement of =

> *intent* that is opposed to "All possible ways of doing things should =
be=20
> included". The key word that people too often omit is *obvious* (once=20
> one learns Python). There are usually, of necessity, multiple ways to =
do=20
> something, but for common operations, there should be one way that is=20
> obvious to the experienced Python programmer.

Yes you are right. And it is exactly the same in case of experienced =
Perl programmers.

There is even a Perl book regarding the best practices, with many =
recommendations for the obvious way to do various things, and there is =
the module Perl::Critic with its command line percritic that follows =
those best practices very closely, so it is also just a buzzword that =
"there is more than one way to do it" for experienced Perl programmers.


> > because this was an example where in Python there are many
>> ways to do it while in Perl there is a single way used usually, which =
is
>> also more simple.
>=20
> Here I disagree. As I replied before, you are either ignoring the=20
> obvious Python way or talking about a rare need.


I was talking about the method of creating a dictionary from an array =
which is much shorter and clear in Perl than in Python, and if you are =
using this very rarely, others might need to use it often.

Octavian