Every time I hear about Python drama, I am reminded that I am too freakin' old for this crap.  Have I been bitten by the = vs == typo, sure, all the time.  Do I think it's worth implementing "walrus" syntax to avoid that error ?  Sure, go right ahead and make my life easier.  This doesn't even break legacy code, so it's a freebie in my book.<br><br>But do I think it should have been such a huge source of drama ?  Hell no.  If people are butthurt because this breaks away from C conventions, to those people I say "go use C then".  A skilled programmer should use the best tools available to them, not lament the fact that a screwdriver is not a drill press.  Python is supposed to be an easy and versatile scripting language, and this kind of syntactic sugar is one of the many ways in which it fulfills that mandate.,(reply>), even though walrus operator break anything, it means one more weird syntax to learn.<br>you can do what walrus operator does without looking scary to newcomers<br>there is a simpler-looking and easier to understand way of doing what walrus operator does, which is why people objected to it, considering how python makes sure people cant abuse operators to obfuscate code. everything must stay in its simplest form, yet walrus operator is a redundant feature. it provides same as an existing method, and that requires people to learn more.,(reply>), "This doesn't even break legacy code" yEaH bUt CoNsIsTeNcY <br><br>"A skilled programmer should use the best tools available to them" the problem is half of the devs out there aren't skilled but just pushed through a 4 year program with no real experience and then hired by some big tech company to be used until they quit for another big tech company,(reply>), the walrus is not really supposed to avoid misusing = or ==, though<br>it's a shorthand for reusing the assigned value in some other expression (that is not also an assignment, you could always reuse assigned values to assign more variables e.g. `a = b = c = 10`)