Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
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
More information about the Python-list