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

Steven D'Aprano steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Thu Jan 15 15:31:45 CET 2009


On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:05:32 -0800, Russ P. wrote:

> 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?

Be fair -- James just admitted that everything he's written in this 
thread is wrong. If Michele's post was, and I quote James, "the first 
thing said right in this entire thread", then obviously everything James 
wrote previously was wrong.

*wink*


-- 
Steven



More information about the Python-list mailing list