Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Patrick Steiger psteiger at
Wed Jan 21 06:48:36 CET 2009

2009/1/20 Paul Rubin <""@nospam.invalid>

> Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at> writes:
> > No wonder you can't get Bruno's point. For the second, static checks
> > to prevent accidents, you have pylint. For the first, not only you
> > are using the wrong tool, but you are barking at python for not
> > having it. Assuming that pylint is perfect (big assumption, but it
> > is up to you to prove where it fails),
> Whaat?  Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven
> is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software.  It is
> the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure.
> --

To quote Carl Sagan (who quoted someone else, i guess),

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence"

"I May Be the Walrus."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Python-list mailing list