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

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Paul Rubin a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid> writes:
>> Russ argument was about "good engineering", not about raw perfs. FWIW,
>> _you_ may be willing to trade dynamism for raw perfs, but there are
>> probably some people here that won't agree.
> 
> Obviously there will never be total unanimity about every tiny thing.

Indeed !-)

> I haven't anywhere in this thread as far as I know suggested
> eliminating dynamism from Python,

Nope, but your suggestion would have the same practical result as far as 
  I'm concerned.

> which would be in "that's not Python
> any more" territory.  But, in the dozens of class definitions I write
> in any given day of coding, I might use the dynamism we're talking
> about in 1% of them at most.

Indeed : these are the classes _you_ (as a library author), write, so 
they work as _you_ (as a user of these library) expect them to work.

>  If having to type a few extra keystrokes
> on that 1% improves program reliabiity AND performance, it certainly
> seems worth it to me.

If it makes simple thing overly complicated, it certainly seems _worse_ 
to me !-)