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

Steve Holden steve at
Mon Jan 26 15:09:39 CET 2009

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Russ P. a écrit :
>> On Jan 23, 6:36 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky... at> wrote:
>>>> Makes *no* sense? There's *no* good reason *at all* for the original
>>>> author to hide or protect internals?
>>> My bad, sorry.
>>> It makes sense... if the original author is an egotist who believes
>>> he must
>>> control how I use that library.
>> If the original author provides you with the source code and the right
>> to modify it, he cannot possibly control how you use the library. You
>> can trivially disable any access controls. But for some reason that's
>> not enough for you.
>> Has it occurred to you that some users might actually *want* access
>> controls? 
> Then they'll have to choose a language which provides it.
>> Maybe some users want to actually use the library as the
>> author intended it to be used.
> And ? Strange enough, that's usually what happens - using the official,
> documented API. Strange enough, it seems that Python programmers are
> mostly wise enough to not break encapsulation (nor abuse any of the
> highly dynamic features of Python) without pretty good reasons, lots of
> thought and attention, clear documentation of the fact, and possibly
> exchanges with the library author (or maintainer) to discuss the problem.

Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". It has perceived
deficiencies for certain software engineering environments. Can we drop
the subject now? This horse was flogged to death long ago, and it's
pointless and cruel to keep on beating the remains.

Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC    

More information about the Python-list mailing list