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

[James Mills]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Paul Rubin
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Programming languages -do not- bare meaning to such systems nor have
> an impact on their suitability or unsuitability" (I presume you mean
> "bear" not "bare") is a far stronger and stupider statement than one
> about Python's suitability or lack thereof.  Most informed users would
> agree that Python is more suitable than some languages for that sort
> of application and less suitable than others.  Only a fool would
> propose that all languages are equally suitable.

Yes I meant "bear" - bite me.

I never did say that python -is- suitable for
all applications or that all languages are suitable
for all purposes.

However, (others that are) claiming that Python
-is not- suitable because python does not
have XYZ feature is equally as foolish.

Who's to say that Python is not just as suitable
for the systems on-board a Boeing-747 then C++ ?

--JamesMills