> This pattern, for example, can’t be lazy: try: import numpy; except ModuleNotFoundError: ...

Wait, that seems bad. These kinds of modules (especially numba) are often exactly the ones that you want to delay importing. Why not provide a way to check the existence at import time? How are you supposed to handle nonexistence in that case?

  import importlib.util

  if importlib.util.find_spec("numpy") is None:
  ... # whatever you wanted to do if numpy is missing

  lazy import numpy

I've got my reservations about lazy imports, but scipy in particular is such a memory hog, I've increasingly been vendoring smaller utilities out of it. Good lazy imports would be a big help.

This seems like an ugly hack. We really need a way to snapshot a python program after its imports have been loaded, similar to temacs/emacs that's been around for decades, or a similar thing that exists in gforth. Emacs's old unexec scheme became unmaintainable but maybe there are still good alternate ways to do it.

This feature seems really valuable for commandline tools! However this paragraph gave me pause:

> Currently, disabling lazy imports disabled the syntax keyword, which means that you can’t use it for circular imports, type checking, etc.

Imo this is a good thing, laziness shouldn't be semantically important. The ability to force disable laziness while maintaining semantics is important for linting and testing, and more often than not, circular imports are a sign of bad code structure.

Is there a language with a hybrid laziness approach? similar to "do work only if needed" but if you have ressources, do work most likely to be needed, like lazy anticipating?

Good feature but god I hate there’s a whole new keyword for a minor modification on an existing concept. Very unnecessary.

Or just use C++. The Python ecosystem is just bloat, blogs and tools.