Thank you.

I promise I don't actually mean to speak for anyone other than myself.

I have observed assistive technology before and wondered just how effective it is. I suspect many sighted programmers (like the parent poster) have wondered this as well, and the point of my post was, to use your metaphor, to point out it is a very different experience riding in a car versus driving one.

That said, some of your report surprise me.

Do you program in K?

You wrote you programmed in all of the languages that I mentioned, but you made mention of how dense Haskell seems and K is much more dense than Haskell.

For example, and I'm sorry if your screen reader doesn't like this, in K I can write:

    c:{+(.#:'=x;?x)}

Q sounds better on a screen reader to me, but is harder for my eyes to parse:

    c:{flip(value count each group x;distinct x)}

Here's a Python implementation of "c" above:

    def c(v):
        h = {}
        for el in v:
            h[el] = h.get(el,0) + 1
        a = []
        for el in h.keys():
            a += [[ h[el], el ]]
        return a

Now I don't know if you know K or Q, but I must say that I don't find this easy to read. Not with my eyes or with my ears. When I pointed to the fact that Python functions are longer and delimited by whitespace caused me a great deal of frustration, I hope that if you don't know K or Q that this gives you a better understanding of what I'm comparing it with.

On the other hand: If you do know K or Q, then I'm wondering if you could explain how you experience a python program like that in your environment is preferable to the K or Q example.