but all that seems to be silly. why try to force feed patches to make python something it was in no way designed for? it seems like the completely wrong approac

but all that seems to be silly. why try to force feed patches to make python something it was in no way designed for? it seems like the completely wrong approach from a design point of view. and your dismissal of the power of type checking systems seems strange. seems weird to say that it doesn't really help when python has nothing of the sort. even a "static python" wouldn't reach the power of some existing systems. even for dynamic languages, python is behind the times for things like that. for example, look at racket versus python. and then there's languages like idris, which go well beyond what even haskell can do. something like idris would be wonderful for critical embedded systems. and if you really want flexibility and a dynamic language, python seems well below lisp/scheme. i would love to see racket and ML-based languages to move towards embedded development over something like python. finally, both lisps/schemes and ML-based languages are very readable. many would argue they are more readable than a language like python. so your implication that type systems incur a readability penalty isn't generally accurate. > But what I believe a language can do for you is help you express your thoughts in such an simple, structured and readable way that the cognitive load is reduced to a minimum, freeing up thought-power to check your logic. basically what i am getting at is that a language like racket or idris fulfill this requirement very strongly, even moreso than python. and additionally, they come with advanced language features that no version of python will ever likely touch on.