Talk:Zen of Python

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Someone who is technical: Please add a less technical (more toward simpler English explanation) for each line. People newer to these things can learn a lot from this, but only if they know what it means. I personally was unable to find it translated to non-technical English 134.186.234.108 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I thought that perhaps if someone searches for import this, that it should redirect to this. Not sure how that's done. MinorFixes (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

-- Ok, I fig'ed it out. import this redirects to here. MinorFixes (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

1) I think the principles would be much easier to read, if they would have bullet points or numbering.

I added numbering, but it was reverted. Changing back and forth makes no sense, so I'd like to have a little dialogue. Reason for not using numbering was "They are not listed with numbers". If the list of principles is a quote, the article should say so. If it's not a quote the reasoning for not using numbers should be changed.

2) Change the image size might make the article more readable.

This is how the article looks on my screen:

               ______________________________________________
   Beautiful  |                                              |
   is         |                                              |
   better     |                                              |
   then       |                                              |
   ugly.      |                                              |
   Explicit   |                                              |
   is         |             Image                            |
   better     |                                              |
   than       |                                              |
   implicit.  |                                              |
   Simple     |                                              |
   is         |                                              |
   better     |                                              |
   than       |                                              |
   complex.   |                                              |

I changed it, but the change was reverted. For the same reason as above, I'd like to have a little dialogue on that. I'd like to note, that not everyone has a big screen or high DPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookRings (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not the original editor who reverted you, but I implemented the second change you suggested, as it's a good idea and the image just repeats the text to the left. As for the first suggestion, while we shouldn't slavishly reproduce facsimiles, we also shouldn't add new elements. Numbering might make people think it's a list of precepts, such that you could refer to them like "Zen #5". However, I wouldn't be opposed to a bulleted list being used. Let's see if anyone has any other input on that though. Opencooper (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer the content to resemble the original output, which does not have bullet points or numbers. Perhaps the image should go elsewhere altogether, let me take a look. +mt 03:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The hanging indents is a brilliant solution, preserving the original formatting and allowing readability at narrower widths. I'm amazed that the <poem> CSS doesn't already include such functionality. Moving the image up also works and was something I considered since it still interfered with the list on smaller viewports. Opencooper (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I personally prefer bullet points for a list of entries, but that's probably a very personal taste. I think the current version looks much better than before (tabs + image on different location). Do we remove this part here from the talk section? BookRings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, leave the discussion here. It's a good record should the issue ever come up again. peterl (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I got to this Wikipedia page by searching for "Zen and Python" but I was expecting to get results for using Python to connect to the Actian Zen database. Colbyringeisen (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a recurring misunderstanding in how the origins of the Zen of Python are described, and it shows up most clearly in the way Wikipedia currently summarizes the topic. The usual statement is that Tim Peters wrote the Zen of Python and posted it to the Python mailing list in 1999. This is factually correct in the narrow sense that Peters authored the actual aphorisms and introduced them to the community. However, this description leaves out an important part of the intellectual and cultural lineage that shaped Python long before the Zen was written.

The design philosophy behind Python did not originate with Peters in 1999. Its roots go back to Guido van Rossum’s time at CWI and, more specifically, to the influence of Lambert Meertens, one of the principal figures behind the ABC language. Meertens emphasized clarity, readability, and humane programming, and he articulated these ideas as a kind of “way” or disciplined approach to writing and thinking about code. Guido absorbed this ethos directly from Meertens during the ABC project, and this inherited philosophy shaped Python from its earliest days.

In this sense, what the documentary refers to as “The Way of Python” is but the pedagogical and philosophical foundation passed from mentor to student. It represents the ABC lineage that informed Python’s design long before Peters distilled that ethos into aphoristic form.

The Zen of Python should therefore be understood as a later cultural crystallization of an already existing philosophy. Peters did not invent the underlying principles; he expressed them in a memorable, humorous, and community‑friendly format. The Zen became a poetic articulation of values that were already embedded in Python’s design through Meertens’ influence on Guido.

A more complete historical account (richer and fruitier) would distinguish between the authorship of the Zen text and the origin of the philosophy it expresses. The Zen is the community’s articulation of a design ethos whose roots lie in the ABC project and in Meertens’ mentorship. Recognizing this lineage clarifies how Python’s culture evolved from a pedagogical tradition into a shared set of principles embraced by a global community. Panic2k4 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply