Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 01:45:17 CET 2009


On Jan 13, 3:07 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've seen no evidence that any Python project is moving even remotely
> toward data encapsulation.  That would be a drastic change.  Even if
> it were only a minor change in the implementation (and it would not
> be), it would be a major stroke in the Python community.  It would
> basically cause a wholescale power shift from the user to the
> implementor.  As a user it'd be like the difference between living in
> a free democracy and a fascist dictatorship.

I just googled "object oriented principles." The first site that came
up lists four princicples:

- Encapsulation
- Abstraction
- Inheritance
- Polymorphism

The Wikipedia entry for "object-oriented programming" also lists
encapsulation as a "fundamental concept."

The first line on the python.org site says:

"Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
used for many kinds of software development."

How can that possibly be true if you see "no evidence that any Python
project is moving even remotely toward data encapsulation"?

Semantics aside, I fail to understand your hostility toward a
fundamental concept of object-oriented programming. The difference
between a free democracy and a "fascist dictatorship"? Give me a
break!



More information about the Python-list mailing list