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

[Paul Rubin]

Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid> writes:
> >  In my limited experience with
> > Haskell (statically typed but very high level),
> 
> "dynamic" and "static" were not meant to concern typing here (or at
> least not only typing).

I'm not sure what you mean by those terms then.

> Haskell and MLs are indeed statically typed, but with a powerfull type
> inference system, which gives great support for genericity
> <ot>(hmmm... is that the appropriate word ?)</ot>

I think you mean "polymorphism"; genericity in functional programming
usually means compile time reflection about types.  (It means
something different in Java or Ada).

> Now these are functional languages, so the notion of "access
> restriction" is just moot in this context !-)

I'm not sure what you mean by that; Haskell certainly supports access
restrictions, through its type and module systems.

> Ok, I should probably have made clear I was thinking of a hi-level
> dynamic _imperative_ language vs a low-level static _imperative_
> language. FP is quite another world.

I'd say that Python's FP characteristics are an important part of its
expressiveness.