That's a minor detail. I'm talking about writing in a procedural style.
Rewriting a for..in as a for with counters is relatively trivial, compared to re-implementing a complex class hierarchy in C.
You can write procedural Python, and it will look kinda like C if you squint. Cython even lets you use C types directly, with a simple syntax. As I said, maybe not the sanest thing to do, everything is an object in Python so you can never really get away from it's object-oriented nature.
Python is not really object oriented. To get information hiding you have to wrap your class in a closure and that closure has to track the individual instances. It's not clean code and it's horribly inefficient.
Python is also not a functional language.
Python provides language structures that allow you to use both styles of programming OOP and functional as-if-it-was.
Right, it's not pure OOP. It's "only" missing strong encapsulation. Trying to implement really private properties in Python doesn't work too well, the language isn't designed for it and it's not considered 'Pythonic'.
All I meant is that everything is an object. It doesn't have strong encapsulation, but you can't get away from its weak encapsulation, since the basic types are objects.
Python written like Python doesn't look like C. Imagine writing in a subset of the language that translates especially cleanly into C, though. It certainly wouldn't be stylistically similar to most other Python code; it'd have more in common structurally to how the same program would be written in C.
