Typed Python?

[LittleDanEhren at yahoo.com]

Ville Vainio wrote:
> >>>>> "Chain" == chain lube <chain_lube at hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>     Chain> You put yourself into big troubles if you miss the
>     Chain> opportunity of Bigloo.
>
> I agree. Should I also forward this message to 10 other people to
> dodge the impending doom?
>
>     Chain> The code is much better structured in Scheme than in
>     Chain> Python. It is a big mistake to assume that Python displays
>     Chain> any readability. The one
>
> So true.
>
> (set! x 10)
>
> Is so much more readable than
>
> x=10

Is that intended to be sarcasm? To me, they're equally readable. You
obviously aren't a very experienced scheme programmer, because if you
were, then you'd use define, not set!. Set! is used extremely rarely in
most Scheme code. And the thing about those two syntaxes is that, while
the Python syntax is more concise, you can do so much more with the
scheme syntax since you have macros.
>
>     Chain> annoying school people in introductory courses would be
>     Chain> Python for its huge learning curve and its messy behavior.
>
> With all due respect, someone that thinks python has a huge learning
> curve must be a little bit on the slow side, cognition-wise.

Some people pick up Python really quickly, others pick up Scheme really
quickly, others don't learn either very fast. If someone is used to
functional programming, then Python could be very confusing.
Daniel Ehrenberg