Why and how "there is only one way to do something"?

[Tolga]

As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
concept?

[Tim Peters]

[Steve Holden, to bonono]

...
I believe I have also suggested that the phrases of the Zen aren't to be
taken too literally.
Heretic.
You seem to distinguish between "obvious" meaning "obvious to Steve
but not necessarily to me" and "really obvious" meaning "obvious to both
Steve and me". So where does the subjectivity creep in?
For those who have ears to hear, it's sufficient to note that:

There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

is followed by:

Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
And are you going to spend the rest of your life arguing trivial semantics?

A more interesting question is how many will spend the rest of their
lives responding ;-)

perfect-dutchness-is-a-journey-not-a-destination-ly y'rs - tim

[Aahz]

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

Aahz wrote:

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing

import this

at an interactive command prompt) is "There should be one (and
preferably only one) way to do it".

Actually, I've gotten used to doing

python -c 'import this'

Faster:

python -m this

Only in Python 2.4 and later:

starship:~> python2.3 -m this
Unknown option: -m
usage: python2.3 [option] ... [-c cmd | file | -] [arg] ...
Try `python -h' for more information.

Why, oh why, do so many people on this newsgroup only consider the latest
version "correct"? I've been guilty myself on occasion, but I do try to
label my suggestions with version warnings.
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncra ft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck." --USENET schmuck (aka Robert Kern)

[Steve Holden]

Simon Brunning wrote:

On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

Aahz wrote:

python -c 'import this'

Faster:

python -m this

So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)

You want a clip round the ear?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:57:18 +0000 in comp.lang.pytho n, Steve Holden
<st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

[...]

Would you say

do:
suite
while condition

or what? Basically do ... while and do ... until most naturally put the
Works for me, though I wouldn't cry if the "while" was changed to
"until" to make the difference between this form and the "while" loop
more obvious. I don't think there's a good argument for _both_
do-while and do-until, but one or the other would be useful.

The biggest objection I see is the addition of one or two more
keywords, but I don't recall using "do" or "until" as a name in any of
my programs...
test after the loop body (suite), and it's difficult to think of a
consistent and natural syntax for expressing the construct. Not that
this stopped lots of people from coming forward with their personal
favourites ... some suggestions even offered "n and a half" looping
possibilitie s.

Syntax is the problem? Specifically the position of the condition
after the loop body? How do you explain the syntax of the new Python
ternary operation, with the test in the middle, even though it
logically has to be done first?

Right now, I tend to write these loops something like

while 1:
do_stuff()
if exit_condition: break

which offends my sense of aesthetics, but it works.

Regards,
-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

[Dan Sommers]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:28:30 +0100,
Xavier Morel <xa**********@m asklinn.net> wrote:

$ python -m this
(no quotes needed btw)
*Three*. *Three* ways to do it: import, -c, -m, and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.
It's usually useful to pipe it through grep too, in order to get only
the piece of zen knowledge you need.

That's just wrong. [throws hands and arms up in [mock] disgust]

Enlightenment does not come in discrete pieces, to be learned one at a
time, to be applied selectively.

Regards,
Dan

--
Dan Sommers
<http://www.tombstoneze ro.net/dan/>

[Steve Holden]

Aahz wrote:

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

Aahz wrote:

In article <ma************ *************** ************@py thon.org>,
Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing

import this

at an interactive command prompt) is "There should be one (and
preferabl y only one) way to do it".

Actually, I've gotten used to doing

python -c 'import this'

Faster:

python -m this

Only in Python 2.4 and later:

starship:~> python2.3 -m this
Unknown option: -m
usage: python2.3 [option] ... [-c cmd | file | -] [arg] ...
Try `python -h' for more information.

Why, oh why, do so many people on this newsgroup only consider the latest
version "correct"? I've been guilty myself on occasion, but I do try to
label my suggestions with version warnings.

Why, oh why, do people who don't run the latest version assume that a
solution for a more recent version labels their original solution
"incorrect" ?

Dammit, the only word in my post apart from the command was "faster".
Not "wronger" or "righter" or even "better". So climb down off that high
horse. Sheesh.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

[Chris Smith]

>>>>> "bonono" == bonono <bo****@gmail.c om> writes:

bonono> What I don't quite understand is, if it is "obvious",
bonono> whether there is a Zen, people would still code it that
bonono> way(unless of course they want to hide it from others or
bonono> make it difficult to understand on purpose), there won't
bonono> be any argument of "which one is the obvious way". And if
bonono> there is an argument(or disagreement), which one is the
bonono> obvious ?

Python seems to strive for consistency in all levels. The 'obvious
way' is the one with the greatest stylistic cohesion across the rest
of the language.

When you delve into a new realm, as I have lately been investigating
the logging module, consistency helps lower the learning curve; we're
re-cycling as much knowledge as possible.

bonono> I think it is more like there is a preferred way, by the
bonono> language creator and those share his view.

You're right. There is no way to factor out the subjective nature of
what becomes orthodoxy. Guido's taste, while perhaps imperfect, still
stands out. Props.

-Chris

[Tolga]

OhmiGod! I posted this message this morning and when I came home, I
said myself "umm, lemme check it" and I cannot believe what I see... 37
threads!

As long as Python is supported by such a hardworking and enthusiastic
community, I'm sure that he (=Python) will become the nightmare of many
other languages.

Thank you all...

[Mike Meyer]

bo****@gmail.co m writes:

The point is again, "obvious" is not so obvious sometimes.
You keep leaving out the context. We're writing *python*. What's
obvious when you're writing python won't be when you're writing
FORTRAN, or Scheme, or O'Caml, or Eiffel, or .... Generally (not
always, I'll admit), when you're writing python, there's one obvious
way to do something. If not, there's a good chance you're not writing
python, you're writing something else with python syntax.
For most of the question I see asking here, they are from another
language background and their obvious way is what they are asking for
that they cannot find in python.

Back in the dark ages, when computers had entire rooms, if not
buildings, dedicated to them, I worked the support desk at a large
state university. Most people learned FORTRAN as a first language, and
then some of them went on to other languages. The standing observation
was that "You can write FORTRAN in any language." This is because
people would write FORTRAN constructs no matter what language they
were using. If the language had a goto, they'd write:

if not condition: goto after
# if body
after:

If the language didn't have a goto, they'd write:

if not condition:
else:
# if body
And then they'd complain if the grader marked them down for doing
this kind of thing.

People coming from other languages trying to write the obvious way
from that language in python are doing the exact same thing as the
people who wrote the above fragments were doing: writing <fill in the
blank> in python. It's not as obviously wrong because the languages
are more recent than FORTRAN, but it's just as wrong.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Dave Benjamin]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Simon Brunning wrote:

On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <st***@holdenwe b.com> wrote:

Aahz wrote:

python -c 'import this'

Faster:

python -m this

So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)

Yes, but which way do you do it if you're Dutch?