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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 14, 9:04 pm, "James Mills" <prolo... at shortcircuit.net.au>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Russ P. <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (..)
>
> > One feature of Ada that I always thought was a good idea is the
> > distinction between functions and procedures, where functions are
> > guaranteed to not have side effects. But I don't think Ada allows
> > advanced functional programming such as passing functions as arguments
> > to other functions.
>
> Russ please do your research before you post.

Please spare me the pedantry.

> The whole idea of the Functional Paradigm is _in fact_ computing
> expressions and functions. Functional Programming is an implementation
> of formal systems (calculus). Therefore it would be very useless
> for any functional language to not do what you describe aboave.

So what?

> Passing the result of a function as input to another function
> _is not_ Advanced Functional Programming, but a requirement
> of the functional paradigm.

Oh, excuse me for misusing the word "advanced." I was merely using it
to distinguish it from programming without side effects, which I would
regard as more "basic" functional programming. But then I'm not as
sophisticated as you.

By the way, your statements earlier to the effect that Python is as
good as any language for large-scale safety-critical systems were very
interesting. I'm wondering how you "know" that.

Also, have you checked with Boeing or ARINC on that? Last I heard,
those neanderthals at ARINC are still suporting Ada as the standard
language for flight systems. I urge you to get in touch with them and
straighten them out right away.