On 4/7/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brendan Arnold wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I realise that the Pylons team have done a great job of allowing
> > Pylons to work with multiple templating engines, database interfaces
> > etc. but doesn't this kind of go against the One True Way philosophy
> > of Python? It seems completely backwards to me that Rails is based on
> > a language that borrows more than a little from Perl and is pretty
> > free-form, although Pylons is a free-form framework based such a
> > 'railed' language as Python.
>
> To quote import this:
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
>
> Is there one obvious way to do these things?  When there is, yes, Pylons
> should take that path.  When there isn't, then no, Pylons should not
> *pretend* there's one obvious way of doing something.
>
> The "one way to do it" philosophy in Python has always been an
> *ambition*, not a reality.  Should you use classes or functions?  Python
> doesn't tell you.  Package or module?  Dict or set?  There's lots of
> choices.  If there's a choice where neither choice is better -- even in
> a specific context -- then sure, you should choose one way.  If there's
> a choice where one option is always the better option, then you should
> choose one way.  This is not a One True Way philosophy, this is more an
> Intelligent Design philosophy.

Mike, Michael, and Ian,

Very well stated!!!

-jj

-- 
"'Software Engineering' is something of an oxymoron.  It's very
difficult to have real engineering before you have physics, and there
isn't anything even close to a physics for software." -- L. Peter
Deutsch

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to