IMO "pythonic" is mostly about using the features the language has rather than trying to treat it as if it was Java or C++.

Having said that, in reviews you do get lazy comments like "not pythonic" or "not best practises" which often boil down to the reviewer just not liking something and being too much of an *** to say why. This is supposed to be a total shutdown that you cannot argue with and it's the kind of thing that might put you off the term "pythonic" for life.

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

This is probably the core thing you might have issue with but I think its not really about conforming in how you write your own code but about the thing you make being easy for others to use.

I love this sentiment:

> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

But I often don't think the Pythonic way is a very good way to do it. And this leaves you a bit stuck!

I only Ruby shop I've ever worked at liberally used Rubocop to undo TIMTOWTDI. I suppose you could _write_ whatever you wanted but Rubocop would pretty aggressively rewrite it.

> Like Perl, they embrace TIMTOWTDI.

Yeah, and it's the wrong approach. Of course, you can have whatever preference you want, but in terms of engineering, it's plain wrong.