I always felt that Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." was a bit of a mess.
Obviously (to anyone who was around at the time), that plank was written in response to Perl's motto: "There is more than one way to do it."
Zig's original take on this, "Only one obvious way to do things" seems even worse. You see, both languages agree that Perl had it wrong: it is unhelpful to have several different ways to write any future. But they went a little too far: it is not actually bad for it to be possible to write the same thing in more than one way.
Zig's new phrasing: "There is an idiomatic way to do it." captures the CORRECT alternative to Perl's motto. It is not important that there be no alternative ways of writing something, Rather, it is important that there be a single idiomatic way to write it.
I think people criticize that line in the zen of Python because Python has now become very maximalist. On it's own merits, I think "There should be one obvious way to do it" is much better, less clunky, than "There is an idiomatic way to do it".
Also, importantly, the Zen of Python is kinda written as a set of ideas that Python should aspire to ("there should be one obvious way to do it") instead of a sales pitch of Python's merits. I prefer that.
Glad to see "Together we serve the users" come back. I miss the old Zig readme that said Zig comes with an MIT license and a humble request to build software that serves the users.
I saw what changed syntactically. I meant I don't really understand what changed semantically. And whether there is any context to why the change was necessary.
Activism as in their move away from GitHub? Andrew K recently said in the JetBrains interview that because of moving away, their CI/CD now actually works.
I think they banned AI and moved from GitHub to Codeberg. They don't seem too controversial to me, and IMO they've already comprehensively trounced Odin, Jai and C3.
I'm not sure that if this is an obvious question that has been gone through already, but have any of the death threats relating to Rust stuff actually been "verified" or is it just an opinion that has been repeated enough times until it has been accepted as truth?
Just the open amount of discontent towards the language and the community, creates the perfect storm for a malicious individual to pose being a Rust developer that sends death threats for doing things that are not aligned with the values of the language/community.
I always felt that Python's "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." was a bit of a mess.
Obviously (to anyone who was around at the time), that plank was written in response to Perl's motto: "There is more than one way to do it."
Zig's original take on this, "Only one obvious way to do things" seems even worse. You see, both languages agree that Perl had it wrong: it is unhelpful to have several different ways to write any future. But they went a little too far: it is not actually bad for it to be possible to write the same thing in more than one way.
Zig's new phrasing: "There is an idiomatic way to do it." captures the CORRECT alternative to Perl's motto. It is not important that there be no alternative ways of writing something, Rather, it is important that there be a single idiomatic way to write it.
Also, importantly, the Zen of Python is kinda written as a set of ideas that Python should aspire to ("there should be one obvious way to do it") instead of a sales pitch of Python's merits. I prefer that.
> - rewordings
> - "memory is a resource" goes without saying
> - emphasize the final point
wow, what a self report
Just the open amount of discontent towards the language and the community, creates the perfect storm for a malicious individual to pose being a Rust developer that sends death threats for doing things that are not aligned with the values of the language/community.