I think it wasn’t the OP’s point to question the design process behind Python — he was mostly just reacting to the commenter above who claimed that:
> Python is a very powerful dynamic language. It lets you code with any paradigm that suits the problem you’re trying to solve. Functional, OOP, procedural, or whatever.
Which simply isn’t true (as is proven by you as well) — Python was never designed to “let you code with any paradigm that suits the problem”. It has severely limited functional and (nonexistent?) metaprogramming capabilities, so the claim might be better phrased as follows:
> Python is a very powerful dynamic language. It lets you code with any paradigm that suits the problem you’re trying to solve, as long as it’s OOP.
(Please excuse the sarcasm: I work with Python and I like it for its simplicity, good tooling and a myriad of other things, but “flexibility”, for a lack of a better word — especially compared with LISP — is not one of them.)
Again, a programming paradigm is like code formatting rules or ide choice. It's a matter of taste. Saying one is an error is just reenacting vim vs emacs. It goes nowhere.
> Python is a very powerful dynamic language. It lets you code with any paradigm that suits the problem you’re trying to solve. Functional, OOP, procedural, or whatever.
Which simply isn’t true (as is proven by you as well) — Python was never designed to “let you code with any paradigm that suits the problem”. It has severely limited functional and (nonexistent?) metaprogramming capabilities, so the claim might be better phrased as follows:
> Python is a very powerful dynamic language. It lets you code with any paradigm that suits the problem you’re trying to solve, as long as it’s OOP.
(Please excuse the sarcasm: I work with Python and I like it for its simplicity, good tooling and a myriad of other things, but “flexibility”, for a lack of a better word — especially compared with LISP — is not one of them.)