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

[Paul Rubin]

Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr> writes:
> And that's the problem : what Paul suggests are not "improvements" but
> radical design changes.

Eh?  I think of them as moderate and incremental improvements, in a
direction that Python is already moving in.  Radical would be
something like a full-scale static type system.

> I really wonder why peoples that seems to dislike one of the central
> features of Python - it's dynamism - still use it (assuming of
> course they are free to choose another language).

I certainly don't think dynamism is central to Python.  In what I see
as well-developed Python programming style, it's something that is
only rarely used in any important way.  I'd spend much less time
debugging if I got compiler warnings whenever I used dynamism without
a suitable annotation.  The 1% of the time where I really want to use
dynamism I don't see any problem with putting in an appropriate
decorator, superclass, or whatever.