I think this is a silly line of inquiry at best, but if one were to attempt to take it seriously, surely “there is precisely one way to do it” is an approach that would better fit the “imperialist” frame than Perl’s actual approach.
>There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
>Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Does The Zen of Python really sound "imperialistic" to you?
The Zen of Python
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
>Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated with each other because Protestantism and Catholicism participated as the state religions of the European colonial powers and in many ways they acted as the "religious arms" of those powers. According to Edward Andrews, Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them", colonialism's "agent, scribe and moral alibi."
>In some areas, almost all of the colony's population were removed from their traditional belief systems and were turned into the Christian faith, which the colonizers used as a reason to destroy other faiths, enslave the natives, and exploit the lands and seas.
>"Colonialism is a form of imperialism based on a divine mandate and designed to bring liberation – spiritual, cultural, economic and political – by sharing the blessings of the Christ-inspired civilization of the West with a people suffering under satanic oppression, ignorance and disease, effected by a combination of political, economic and religious forces that cooperate under a regime seeking the benefit of both ruler and ruled." -Jan H. Boer of the Sudan United Mission
I think it is a stretch to argue that every missionary is motivated by 'Imperialism'. Certainly some may have been in the past, but if one sincerely accepts the tenants of a religion then it isn't surprising one has enthusiasm to spread it. I've seen plenty of evangelists for every ideology under the sun. People who think they are right will go to great lengths to spread their ideas.
Also, the end of slavery was pushed by conscientious Christian evangelists like John Newton and William Wilberforce in the UK. It is easy to argue against slavery in Christianity owing to the Imago Dei doctrine. I suspect it is less easy to argue against slavery in other religions and cultures; many of which still practice forms of it today.
Spreading your religion while separating your culture is difficult. The same way it is difficult for a migrant to fully adapt the customs of any host culture. I think the relationships between these ideas are more complex than the evil catch-all of 'Imperialism!'.
I think it might be easier to see the point you are making if we substituted some other ideas. For instance, how many of us are ready to argue that freedom and democracy are evil or imperialist ideas? Yet they served as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
I think one could easily make similar arguments about, say, the Internet. But let’s leave it aside. Let me ask you something: even granting it’s true, what does anything here have to do with Perl, beyond guilt by association?
I don't think it's a stretch to argue that Christianity is imperialistic, and by extension Christian missionaries are de facto agents of imperialism. However, I think it's a stretch to argue that Perl is imperialistic. :)
It's fascinating to learn that Larry Wall might have become a missionary had his life gone a different direction, but I don't think one can make a compelling case that Wall's religiosity had a major effect on Perl's language design. Don Knuth is a devout Lutheran who played church organ, taught Sunday school, and wrote a book about the Bible -- but it just doesn't seem likely we should be concerned that typesetting our work with TeX subtly infuses it with Christian apologia.
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
This always felt like an excessive over-reaction to Perl's "there's more than one way to do it" motto and never struck me as desirable or true.
In the earlier days of Python I remember reading StackOverflow questions which attracted differing solutions and Python advocates (who were a bit abrasive at the time) would reconcile this with the above by saying some answers weren't sufficiently "pythonic". It all seemed rather strange.
I think this is pretty common though. Most language communities converge on some standard way of doing things. I always try to go along with the philosophy of the language I’m working in, even if I wouldn’t necessarily choose that myself from a blank slate.
