On 18/08/18 01:59, Abe Dillon wrote:
The argument I tried to make is, "yes I believe there are cases where a
less jargon identifier is preferable and that I believe 'lambda' is an
example of a missed opportunity to use a less jargon (maybe 'esoteric' is a
better word here?), more descriptive name."
While I don't entirely disagree with you, if I had been responsible for
inventing that bit of Python I would probably have gone with "lambda"
too. It had been part of my vocabulary as a computer scientist long
before I met it in a programming language. Whether it's a *good* choice
or not... possibly reusing "def" would fit people's expectations better,
or perhaps it would have caused more confusion. Who can tell?
Jargon becomes jargon because it's useful to enough people, for
occasionally rather odd definitions of "useful". In the case of lambda,
it's shorter than "inline function definition" and lambda calculus at
least shows up on most CompSci courses. Once it settles into a group,
you use it because other members of the group will understand what you
mean and might not understand if you rephrase it.
> For instance: when the iPhone was introduced, a lot of people praised
> it's subjectively "slick" user interface. I believe that perception of
> slickness is partly because the iPhone emulated physical interfaces
> very well so it leveraged people's intuition about the physical world.
> It was delightfully intuitive.
One of the things Apple have always been very good at is thinking hard
about user interfaces. What made the iPhone so good was that they
emulated the right physical interfaces, so flipping a page when you're
reading rather than pressing a button.
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
