Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path: <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'instance,': 0.05; 'library,': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'correspond': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'am,': 0.12; 'things.': 0.12; 'def': 0.13; 'code?': 0.16; 'okay,': 0.16; 'x1,': 0.16; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wed,': 0.17; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.21; "doesn't": 0.22; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'basis,': 0.23; 'library.': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.26; 'code': 0.26; 'compare': 0.28; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.29; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.29; 'pm,': 0.29; 'fairly': 0.30; '3.x': 0.30; 'received:209.85.210.46': 0.30; 'received:mail- pz0-f46.google.com': 0.30; 'chris': 0.30; 'equivalent': 0.31; 'actually': 0.31; 'thu,': 0.32; 'actual': 0.32; 'implement': 0.32; 'there': 0.33; 'productive': 0.34; 'probably': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'comparing': 0.37; 'fair': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'received:google.com': 0.37; 'received:209.85': 0.38; 'uses': 0.38; 'doing': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'received:209': 0.39; 'as:': 0.70; '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:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vzwh/iIEOCWWhO0LNFThcqmoijUYWD6/dFzJ5mD7sHU=; b=tJvU3FzEP1Bu3iCCFEa3i1IsWs2hNm9xKKGrDxXFuy5IrWguCczn4KsUh5wbRp30OO OpWvkbUnUbwG/Z/7ADYFeF9OqWc9tNndUba52PrRXZKtkjTwH189u9FN/zLbvK2r5M1s zU41lh7sJ/VS2E04CYjke8WmyIIVjiaX3AHtcyJZj3ltrygBCtsi6Vw1mVSXC+T67jT2 uW5+MseWOfsc/B1WkFIMDfHE5LkQCPr9SS3n0ypGyrX5oHORdPObTmefXJg51kNLqQv1 phw4JAJxj1ydiqBRREyJ6dg+rCcE1KSmMW4SVWQAMLe5wJanB2QggU+EjB5SvL6hmQ2I velg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmpCDZ63VhSmypYSWY=THw0n1cGOgLVh1MQLsVV03xAwdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4f612b19$0$1379$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> <CAJ6cK1ZsP0bBDjSGygqt=QWpj=Pk7Z4KeDWuM-3qFTvcez6-Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmpCDZ63VhSmypYSWY=THw0n1cGOgLVh1MQLsVV03xAwdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:51:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Python is readable
To: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.692.1331833908.3037.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace: 1331833908 news.xs4all.nl 6975 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:42418
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21699

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>> 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):
>> =C2=A0 =C2=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?

"Actual code" often uses the standard library.

> 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?

It's fair. But it's also fair to note that the comparison is silly,
because the easiness of writing quines doesn't correspond with the
easiness of doing productive things.


-- Devin