Quoth the PEP[1], Guido changed his mind when he found proof that coders would write redundant (and expensive) code to avoid using a separate line to construct a temporary variable.

So one might argue that a principle of python is that the language is dictated by how people read and write rather than the other way around... it's pretty hard to say what principles are "core" when they all conflict and you have to weigh various tradeoffs.

[1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0572/#the-importance-of-...

>Guido disagrees and rejected the idea multiple time in the last 2 decades. I think he worked on Python for a long time too :)

Guido also rejected several ideas that would totally fit with Python in those decades. There are lots of concerns (including implementation ones), not just what fits with some hypothetical "Zen", which was never meant as a contract anyway.

Besides Guido finally agreed to it, and even quit because of it.

If Python was to be kept "simple" at all costs, it would have added 20 other things, from operator overloading to yield from over those decades, some far more complex, and non-local than the operator change.

That’s an impressively incorrect history of the operator.

The zen of Python is not a binding constitution. It does not mean nothing can be added if there is some way to do it already, especially if that way improves things. It’s no more “going against the principles” than f-strings where, and they turned out just great.

Guido is the one who accepted the idea and stepped down after he was attacked on social media for accepting the idea.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20465256

See other replies. Guido was for the operator.