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

Luis Zarrabeitia kyrie at uh.cu
Tue Jan 20 05:27:37 CET 2009


Quoting Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu>:

> 
> Quoting "Russ P." <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Jan 19, 6:24 pm, "James Mills" <prolo... at shortcircuit.net.au>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Python programmers tend to not have a need for
> > > properties. Quite honestly they are a waste of time.
> > > They come from traditional OO approaches to software design
> > > (and mostly from the Java world).
> > 
> > With statements like that, it's no wonder you don't understand the
> > value of encapsulation.
> > 
> [snip]
> > 
> > If you didn't plan ahead and encapsulate the radius from the start,
> > properties allow you to save yourself and encapsulate it later without
> > breaking the client's code.
> 
> Python programmers don't _need_ to plan ahead and encapsulate the radius
> from
> the start. That's the whole point. No clairvoyance needed. I kind of like
> that.

Oops. I didn't noticed we were agreeing on this last point.
Bad english... bad...

[btw, I highly doubt James doesn't understand the value of encapsulation. Don't
you mean "enforced data hiding" again?]

Cya!

-- 
Luis Zarrabeitia
Facultad de Matemática y Computación, UH
http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie




More information about the Python-list mailing list