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

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 08:05:32 CET 2009


On Jan 14, 10:40 pm, "James Mills" <prolo... at shortcircuit.net.au>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Michele Simionato<michele.simion... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > There are lots of Python developers (and most of the core developers)
> > that think the OO community is wrong about enforced encapsulation.
> > Personally, I think in a few years everybody will realize the mistake
> > of enforced encapsulation and that the OO definition in the Wikipedia
> > page will be changed. Even if not, Wikipedia definitions does not
> > matter much, everybody has his own idea of what OO means,
> > and the Python definition is good as any other. Don't get pissed off
> > on words.
>
> Amen! The first thing said right in this entire thread! (one of)
>
> --JamesMills

Wait a minute. Aren't the guy who just took me to task about the
definition of functional programming? So the definition of functional
programming is written in stone, but the definition of OO programming
is written in smoke?

Just for the record, I really don't care much about the definition of
OO programming. I brought it up only because someone tried to claim
that "enforced" encapsulation is a terrible idea. Well, as far as I
can tell, the majority of OO "programmers" (and software engineers,
software architects, etc.) seem to think otherwise. Maybe they are
wrong -- but I seriously doubt it.

As I said before, enforced encapsulation may not be appropriate for
every application, but it is definitely appropriate for some. Not
every door needs a lock, but certainly some do.



More information about the Python-list mailing list