> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
> Barry Warsaw, one of the core Python developers, once said that it frustrated him that "The Zen of Python" (PEP 20) is used as a style guide for Python code, since it was originally written as a poem about Python's internal design. [0]
I did a quick search for more background but didn't find anything.
[0]: https://github.com/amontalenti/elements-of-python-style#a-li...
Also Python 2 and Python 3 gives me at least two was to print :)
On the subject of printing, there are actual reasons for having this duplicate functionality. The main way to print is of course the print function in three, or print statement in two. The print function was lacking the ability to flush the buffer before that was introduced in three. You would have to call sys.stdout.flush(), whereas now the print function includes the boolean "flush" keyword argument. The second way to print is to call sys.stdout.write(), which does not automatically append a newline. That functionality was implemented in the print function with the "end" keyword argument. You can pass it an empty string in place of the newline.
So for most use cases, print() is just fine. Sometimes you want finer grained control, and for that you would use the sys module.
Lazy sequences are the sort of thing that you don't care about until you need to process a ten-million-line file (or whatever) and suddenly find that your program is slowing down for pointless memory allocations up-front -- then they become unbelievably important.
Hmm, I had never thought about it like that. Are there any articles, etc. you recommend about the differences or the advantages of one method over the other? It'd be nice to look into this more.
There is no difference between `map(func, values)` and `[func(x) for x in values]`, except for character count.