constant in python?

[Tim Rowe]

In article <7xsneoijz7.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>, phr-n2001 at nightsong.com 
(Paul Rubin) wrote:

> "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:
> > > problem with enforcing privacy is that the designer can seldom
> > > anticipate all of the possible uses of their code and placing 
> > > arbitrary
> > > access restriction can make it impossible for the user to accomplish
> > > their task.
> > 
> > Hear, hear!  Designers aren't omniscient and a language that lets
> > me workaround a limitation in the design of a framework or library
> > I need to use is just what I need.
> 
> The trouble is, the very existence of a workaround is sometimes itself
> a limitation, e.g. in implementing an applet sandbox.
> 
> > > Python is a general purpose programming language and its design 
> > > should
> > > not be significantly compromised to make a particular (uncommon) 
> > > usage
> > > more convenient i.e. security environments.
> > 
> > Yep.  Besides, rexec and Bastion (could use some spiffying up,
> > but) are pretty good for this.
> 
> I'll check into those.  However, a true general purpose language
> should be useable in all environments.  

I don't much believe in general purpose languages. The trouble is, a 
language that can do everything won't be very good at anything. Be aware 
of the strengths and weaknesses of different languages, have more than one 
string to your bow, and know how to choose which one to use. I doubt if 
Python could ever be the language of choice for real-time operating system 
design, embedded control or safety critical for instance, and should 
resist adding complication in an attempt to move into those fields. IMHO 
Python development should play to its strengths and not try to turn it 
simultaneously into Haskell, Ada, Forth, C++ and Smalltalk!