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

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Wed Jan 14 10:54:31 CET 2009


On Jan 14, 2:44 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I thought you were done wasting time with this nonsense.

> An engine *simulation* is one
> thing; the actual engine control code is another.

Guess what systems I worked on that didn't even use scoping?  I wrote
code for the GP7000 (equipped on some Airbus 380s) and the F-136
(which will be equipped on some F-35 fighters) engine controllers.
Neither one used any data hiding.  The language was C (not C++), but
it was generated from schematic diagrams.

Would you like to adopt GE's practice of schematic-generated C with no
namespaces or data hiding?  No?  Then don't be telling me I have to
embrace Boeing's.


Carl Banks






More information about the Python-list mailing list