[dragonsh]

> But that's missing the point that Python is still not meant to be the best at anything, but good at most things.

The most important thing about Python is readability and its part of its syntax and is one of the best languages out there for readability.

Zen of python:

  >>> import this
  The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

  Beautiful is better than ugly.
  Explicit is better than implicit.
  Simple is better than complex.
  Complex is better than complicated.
  Flat is better than nested.
  Sparse is better than dense.
  Readability counts.
  Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
  Although practicality beats purity.
  Errors should never pass silently.
  Unless explicitly silenced.
  In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
  There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
  Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
  Now is better than never.
  Although never is often better than *right* now.
  If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
  If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
  Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
  >>>

[jen20]

I don’t know how people reconcile “python is beautiful and elegant” with “name your file __init__.py or __main__.py” while keeping a straight face.

[oblio]

Heck, the package manager having to execute random code in every package (setup.py).

And speaking of beautiful and elegant, dunders everywhere, really?

[nrakx]

That applies to Python 2.7 and the code that Tim Peters writes. It does not apply to current Python and the coding styles that most people employ.

Current coding styles are either:

- Java-like ravioli, with class hierarchies that no one understands.

- Academic functional and iterator spaghetti, written by academics who think Python offers the same guarantees as Haskell.

Both styles result in severely broken code bases.

[fastasucan]

Are you really saying that these are the two coding styles of Python? Any source for this claim?

[baq]

and classes are most of the time not needed anyway, it's just Java programmers that aren't used to the idea that code can be perfectly correct and readable without a single class