I think that's exactly the problem with a lack of Python macros. The full quote, of course, goes: "There should be one-- and preferably only one --*obvious* way to do it."
Often, there's a mathematical notation for something, and *this* is the only obvious way to write anything out. But this doesn't work if you force every package to adopt the same syntax. For example, if you'd like a package to work with probabilities, it's very reasonable to want to write `x ~ Normal(0, 1)` to say x follows a normal distribution. This is the only syntax I consider natural for this problem; but packages can't do that, since `~` already has a meaning outside of probability. Not to mention, DSLs are forced to adopt all kinds of weird syntax when the behavior of base Python doesn't align with what the DSL needs to do. Obviously, the only way to write out a `for` loop should be to use the `for` keyword. This doesn't work in JAX. If you want to use a `for` loop in JAX, you have to use the `lax.fori_loop` function, or else `for` will end up being unrolled, because of various requirements of the JAX compiler. Having to use `lax.fori_loop` is, to put it mildly, *incredibly* unpythonic. This really is the biggest reason I switched to Julia: Python math is unpythonic. I don't want to be forced to learn lots of weird little functions like `np.matmul(x1, x2)` when there's already one obvious syntax I'm very familiar with: `x1 * x2`. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/6QM4GMH5FDX2H5OZHCE33EOJHCV3TI2R/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
