General question about Python design goals

[bonono at gmail.com]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Look at the list.count() example at the start of this thread.
> Diagnosing it isn't hard.  Curing it isn't hard.  It doesn't bloat
> Python by an order of magnitude.  A suitably factored implementation
> might handle lists and strings with the exact same code and not incur
> any extra cost at all.  That type of thing happens all the time here.
I believe the language creator use the "lack of" as a way to
prevent/discourage that kind of usage. Just like the ternary
operator(still don't know why it is finally accepted). It is not a
problem(not having), it is a feature(to teach you program better), so
what cure are we talking about ?