[mumblemumble]

We seem to be seeing a paradigm clash. On one side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable. On the other side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable and also Pythonic.

[jnxx]

> On one side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable.

The thing is this: You can add something which, in isolation, seems desirable and positive -- but in the greater picture, is a net negative due to the complexity it adds.

People might say that those who do not like the pattern matching syntax are not obliged to use it. But when developing code in longer-running projects, far more code is read than written. Adding syntax, especially with complex edge cases, especially from languages which use concepts that are at the core quite alien to Pythons main concepts, adds a burden which is difficult to justify.

[mumblemumble]

Very much so. I run into this with Clojure. It has so many different ways to skin every cat, each with its own unique blend of quirks, that it can be quite difficult to understand other people's code, and, by extension, use the language in a team setting.

That sort of experience leaves me thinking that this is a very dangerous turn to take for a language whose core ecological niche is, "Easy for professionals who don't have a BS in CS to understand and use productively." Lines 2 and 13 of PEP 20 are core to why Python, of all languages, came to dominate that niche. I am beginning to fear that the Python core team, being composed primarily of software engineers, is ill-equipped to properly understand that.

[jennyyang]

Yap. It doesn't make sense to destroy the language just to get in a particular feature. You don't need a language to do everything. It needs to be good at everything it's meant to be good at.