>> As a design goal Python aims to be as little flexible as possible to enforce its design goal of making code readable at any and every cost. I think that's a

>> As a design goal Python aims to be as little flexible as possible to enforce its design goal of making code readable at any and every cost. I think that's a very narrow way of defining flexibility. By your definition of flexibility, C++ must be really flexible because its template system is Turing Complete and you can do whatever you like! By the same definition, Scheme must be a pretty inflexible language because its syntax is extremely limited (simple). Python is flexible in that: - it can be used in many different fields (because libraries exist for science, web -- you can find a library in Python for pretty much any task you can imagine). - there a number of different implementations of the language to suit your needs (CPython, Pypy for speed, now Micropython for embedded). It is (somewhat) easily ported to other platforms (e.g. ARM, JVM, .NET). - the language still allows you to do imperative, OO and to some degree functional programming. I don't think allowing Python to do everything under the Sun makes it "flexible". - Python's dynamism (look at something like the library "sh"), ducktyping, keyword arguments make it flexible. -- Final point: I think using Python 3's print statement as an example of Python being inflexible is dishonest. Python 3 had major internal changes made to it. The backward incompatible jump between 2 and 3 (AFAIK) was more a choice and a requirement. Guido has recently (just last year) said that he will never do anything like Python 2 -> Python 3 transition again.