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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 13, 11:40 pm, Steven D'Aprano
<ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:

> But, gosh darn it, wouldn't it be nice to program the critical parts of
> your code in "strict Python", and leave the rest as "trusting Python",
> instead of having to use Java for the lot just to get strictness in the
> critical parts? If only there was a way to do this, and ensure people
> won't abuse it.

Yes, that would indeed be nice. I am certainly not the only one who
could use a language that is excellent for both research prototyping
*and* the final, safety-critical system. Then perhaps the prototype
could just be cleaned up and "hardened" for the end product rather
than rewritten in another language -- by programmers in another state
who may fail to understand many of the details that the prototype
developer agonized over.

I don't know if such a versatile language could even exist, but it
would sure be valuable. Maybe it's like asking for a football player
who can excel as both a wide receiver and a guard. But players who
weigh 280 pounds and run a 4.4 40 are hard to find.