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

[Paul Rubin]

Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu> 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.