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

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 09:44:05 CET 2009


On Jan 13, 11:51 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> writes:
> > At GE there was no encapsulation in sight on any system I worked on.
> > In fact, our engine simulation was a special-purpose object-oriented
> > language with--get this--no private variables.  Some other systems I
> > worked on didn't even use scoping, let alone encapsulation.
>
> Where my officemate used to work, the simulation stuff was written in
> Matlab, but the actual flight stuff was written in Ada.  I wonder
> if GE did something similar.

I was going to suggest the same thing. An engine *simulation* is one
thing; the actual engine control code is another. And the interface
between the engine control code and the rest of the flight software is
yet another. The FMS should be setting the throttle level, but I doubt
it should be fooling around with the guts of the engine control
software.



More information about the Python-list mailing list