People choose tech based upon the business needs. I don't like Java, still don't. But I don't tell people they were making a huge mistake and they needed to b

People choose tech based upon the business needs. I don't like Java, still don't. But I don't tell people they were making a huge mistake and they needed to be "schooled" into using C++, e.g. There's usually some business reason to use a particular technology -- one that you may not like. Back to python. There is no type checking in len() or abs(). The best argument I can make is through code. You, yourself, can make your own len() method. This will behave exactly like len(). Let's call it len2(): def len2(obj): try: return obj.__len__() except AttributeError: raise TypeError(f"object of type '{type(obj)}' has no len()") There's no type checking, because there's no need. All that object needs is for __len__() to exist. Further we can add abs() and len() to an object like this: class X: def __len__(self): return 2 def __abs__(self): return 1 assert len(X()) == 2 assert len2(X()) == 2 assert abs(X()) == 1 Fortunately you can fix the issues with error uniformity by creating your own functions if you choose the method above. I won't judge you -- because there might be a reason you may want that. > I just posit that most people who like Python only like it because they don't (yet) know better. I don't know about that. I came from a background of C/C++/Ada/Java/68k Assembly/Perl/Shell Script/Awk/etc. I switched to python about a decade ago. The python community has some of the smartest people I've ever met. To me the smart people seem to have gravitated towards python.