Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'instance,': 0.05; 'library,': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'python': 0.08; 'readable': 0.09; 'am,': 0.12; 'def': 0.13; 'code?': 0.16; 'cryptic': 0.16; 'eternal': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'okay,': 0.16; 'x1,': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'received:209.85.210.174': 0.21; 'received:mail-iy0-f174.google.com': 0.21; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'basis,': 0.23; 'code': 0.26; 'compare': 0.28; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.29; 'fairly': 0.30; '3.x': 0.30; 'equivalent': 0.31; 'actually': 0.31; 'thu,': 0.32; 'does': 0.32; 'actual': 0.32; 'implement': 0.32; 'there': 0.33; 'probably': 0.35; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'question': 0.36; 'comparing': 0.37; 'fair': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'received:google.com': 0.37; 'received:209.85': 0.38; 'doing': 0.38; 'getting': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'received:209': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'more': 0.61; 'course,': 0.62; 'as:': 0.70; 'mean.': 0.73; 'debate.': 0.84; 'quote,': 0.84; 'readability': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8gn/wu2aAtvlwQt3WH4/xtuXIo0DUFGJjCJt+V9/62s=; b=kdGY2m8gxfHEXLLnGhtlLNv49j1CDkm7Mth/WcVY9awToik8ITT9ALU3EYc0fKgmyt kEPwRZqIWu/cVqNz/46Y/mwXDAVzjOhdGlXjEyIKrCtWTj8eZKNi9/65TRb1XMQoHSNl e/yH5wfN4Ij26gbbM/ANGG4lOQkpLdmQjaIlNtVPrmGkEc0kcxT9mYwyjtqzwnWEU1En OCLF+VrK2VeoEY8KLaNr0A8G3IBsk4HSum3oEeiFWsNn/CyImXoKjADdIebOV34P1WsY dRaGTSWCBr7C4c+uPUhwJu7ilR5JCZx5U1suq0WXhgcG1dZpOoREUosYyFRpmpkmqBSU Gvaw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4f612b19$0$1379$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:54 +1100 Subject: Re: Python is readable From: Chris Angelico To: python-list@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1331771276 news.xs4all.nl 6950 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34693 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21639 On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle wrot= e: > I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the > implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is probably better > implemented in Python 3.X as: > > def pairwise_sum(list1, list2): > =A0 =A0return [x1 + x2 for x1, x2 in zip(list1, list2)] Okay, here's something for debate. Should the readability of a language be gauged on the basis of its standard library, or should you be comparing actual code? For instance, a quine in C can be fairly complex and messy, and it can be unobvious what it's doing - but in HQ9+ it's easy. Is it fair to compare on that basis, or should you actually implement the same / equivalent code in each before judging? Of course, that's all without getting into the question of what does "readable" even mean. This has nothing to do with the eternal question of whether it's more readable to use verbose English keywords or cryptic symbols. ChrisA