variable declaration

[Arthur]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 08:47:31 +0100, aleaxit at yahoo.com (Alex Martelli)
wrote:

>
>Even the various "success stories" we've collected (both on websites,
>and, more impressive to PHBs, into paper booklets O'Reilly has printed)
>play a role.  ``NASA uses it for space missions, so of course we must
>use it to control our hot dog franchises'' -- we DID say we're talking
>about stupid firms, right?

>This is a good development, overall.  Against stupidity, the gods
>themselves contend in vain; Python's entrance into stupid firms broadens
>its potential appeal from less than 10% to around 100% of the market,
>which is good news for sellers of books, tools, training, consultancy
>services, and for Python programmers everywhere -- more demand always
>helps.  *BUT* the price is eternal vigilance...

What if:

There was a well conducted market survey conclusive to the effect that
adding optional strict variable declaration would, in the longer run,
increase Python's market share dramatically.

It just would. 

More books. more jobs, etc.

Why would it?

My sense of how the real world works is that there is going to be one
anti-Python advocate lying in wait for the first bug he can find that
he can say would have been caught if Python had strict variable
declaration, as he always knew it should. 

He wants to be the PHB someday. The current PHB knows that, and since
being sensitive to these kinds of realities is how he got to be the
PHB, he is too smart to open himself up to this kind of risk.

The PHB can pretty safely make the use of the option optional.  As
long as he is a position to jump down the throat of the programmer who
created the bug.   

"The option is there, why the hell didn't you use it".

What is the correct language design decision in light of these
realities?

My answer is, I think, the same as your answer. In fact, its simpler
for me - I don't write Python books.

But isn't this kind of where Python is at the moment?

Art