is python Object oriented??

[Russ P.]

On Feb 3, 4:14 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho... at wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:37:57 -0000, Russ P. <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 7:48 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho... at wildebst.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:16:01 -0000, Russ P. <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Here we go again. If you have access to the source code (as you nearly
> >> > always do with Python code), then "breaking the language-enforced data
> >> > hiding" is a trivial matter of deleting the word "private" (or
> >> > equivalent).
>
> >> If it's that trivial to defeat something that its proponents appear to
> >> want to be close to an iron-clad guarantee, what on earth is the point
> >> of using "private" in the first place?
>
> > If a library developer releases the source code of a library, any user
> > can trivially "defeat" the access restrictions. But if a team of
> > developers is checking in code for a project, the leader(s) of the
> > project can insist that the access restrictions be respected to
> > simplify the management of interfaces. The larger the team, the more
> > useful that can be. That's why Java, C++, Ada, Scala, and other
> > languages have a "private" keyword.
>
> Indeed he can.  He can even do that in Python; it just requires a little
> self-discipline from the team, or a validation script on the code
> repository if he really doesn't trust them.  Not only can this be done
> without forcing the rest of the world to play, it makes things a little
> less daunting when those nice clean interfaces turn out to be
> incomplete/too slow/not what you thought.

This has already been refuted several times on this thread alone, so I
will not bother doing it again.