prompted by someone asking what the heck it meant (probably as the result of a discussion where someone called
Zope not Pythonic, I suspect :).
I think the concept "Pythonic" still has value, no matter that it's hard to define. It only has limited value though,
and I agree it should not be used without further specification. This is a quote from my original entry:
"Sometimes I think the condemnation of software as 'unpythonic' may be somewhat unfair and may obscure other positive aspects of the software. A less powerful framework that is easy to pick up for a Python programmer may be considered more Pythonic than a far more powerful system that takes more of a time investment to learn."
"This code is not Pythonic" is not a very good argument
*by itself* to reject it. It could be a basis for further discussion. I do believe that as an abstract ideal the goal "I want my software to be Pythonic" can be useful to guide evolution to consensus idioms and patterns, even though, as Jeff says, there are vast differences between frameworks that all call themselves Pythonic.
1131616515
Posted bydlkitaat
2005-11-10 03:55 AM
that would be me asking it on the EuroPython list, and yes I was kind of tired of the mantra "zope is not pythonic". I agree completely with Chris' point.
Also, one thing to consider is that python is used to solve a lot of complex problems - i.e. that involve complex abstractions or problems that are hard to understand by their very nature - so the soution becomes more complex than the average "hello world!", and thus risks being categorised as "unpythonic" :)
Finally, I reccon that of all the people I have heard utter "X is Unpythonic", none has had a good understanding of "X" - at all. That should give us an indication of the value of such statements... ;-)
http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2005/08/06/0
prompted by someone asking what the heck it meant (probably as the result of a discussion where someone called
Zope not Pythonic, I suspect :).
I think the concept "Pythonic" still has value, no matter that it's hard to define. It only has limited value though,
and I agree it should not be used without further specification. This is a quote from my original entry:
"Sometimes I think the condemnation of software as 'unpythonic' may be somewhat unfair and may obscure other positive aspects of the software. A less powerful framework that is easy to pick up for a Python programmer may be considered more Pythonic than a far more powerful system that takes more of a time investment to learn."
"This code is not Pythonic" is not a very good argument
*by itself* to reject it. It could be a basis for further discussion. I do believe that as an abstract ideal the goal "I want my software to be Pythonic" can be useful to guide evolution to consensus idioms and patterns, even though, as Jeff says, there are vast differences between frameworks that all call themselves Pythonic.
Also, one thing to consider is that python is used to solve a lot of complex problems - i.e. that involve complex abstractions or problems that are hard to understand by their very nature - so the soution becomes more complex than the average "hello world!", and thus risks being categorised as "unpythonic" :)
Finally, I reccon that of all the people I have heard utter "X is Unpythonic", none has had a good understanding of "X" - at all. That should give us an indication of the value of such statements... ;-)
/dario