Lambda the Ultimate

Guido van Rossum, Linux Magazine interview
started 6/10/2002; 5:21:47 AM - last post 6/10/2002; 6:59:40 AM

Ehud Lamm - Guido van Rossum, Linux Magazine interview

6/10/2002; 5:21:47 AM (reads: 1967, responses: 1)

Guido van Rossum, Linux Magazine interview

I'm not a very moral person in the sense that I don't have very strong views. I'm not religious. I tend to see the value of everybody's point of view. I like to listen to different people and say, "Well yes, that's a reasonable position. That's also a reasonable position." Or, "Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from and why you think this way about it and why you think that way about it." So I don't have absolute morals. I probably have some, but it's pretty difficult to tease them out of me, and I haven't succeeded myself.

An interesting interview (for a change!)

Guido talks about his approach to designing Python, and a bit about its present (Zope) and future.

Should language designers try to be as flexible as possible (see quote above) or should they have strong views, and stick to them no matter what?

Are these really contradictory goals? Are these two approaches the only possible options?

Posted to Python by Ehud Lamm on 6/10/02; 5:24:52 AM

Jarno Virtanen - Re: Guido van Rossum, Linux Magazine interview

6/10/2002; 6:59:40 AM (reads: 524, responses: 0)

For what I'm worth, I think that you took that specific quote a bit out of the context. I assume that the comments you made were more on language design than moral issues and I think GvR was referring to very strict dogmatic views, like for example the one that Stallman takes. Whether or not it was mis-quoted I think the question itself is interesting.

His lighter view on dogmatism of course affects the way he designs Python, but I think he is more in the dictatorship camp what comes to designing languages. He is known to listen very carefully to thoughtful criticism, but he's nowadays willing to go his own way; if it's the Right Way (for him). So one could claim that the combination of not-too-dogmatic and still very strong leadership would be the best choice.