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

[James Mills]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Russ P. <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com> wrote:
(...)

> 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?

Did anyone say that ? OO concepts are a much
studied concept. However -you- still miss the basic
point. OO programming -is- a model not a paradigm.
Functional Programming -is- a paradigm.

> 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.

Ever thought that perhaps you might be the one
that's wrong ? Not that it really matters, but I am
a Software Engineer myself.

> 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.

Your analogy is terrible. We are talking about
machines that execute instructions in a sequence.

At the most basic level do you really think a machine
really cares about whether -you- the programmer
has illegally accessed something you shouldn't have ?

--JamesMills