is python Object oriented??

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

thmpsn.m.k at gmail.com a écrit :
> On Feb 2, 2:55 am, Stephen Hansen <apt.shan... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is proven
>>> by your statement above, whereby you are driving a user away,
>>> simply because the language, in one small aspect, does not
>>> give him what he wants, and the tenor of this thread has been
>>> very much: "That's how it is - like it or lump it", and no amount
>>> of careful explanation of why people want the feature has cut
>>> any ice -
>> I'm missing the careful explanation. What I've heard is that the lack
>> of enforced encapsulation is "a danger". What I've heard is that
>> people want it because they've been told they should want it and
>> believe that. Why?
> 
> Who has said the latter? Are you just trying to spread FUD?
> 
>> There have been no "careful explanations" to answer that, in my mind.
>> And thus my response is: the practical possibility of needing access
>> vastly outweights the theoretical situation that might go bad if
>> encapsulation wasn't there. Why? Because in any real situation, IMHO,
>> *forced* encapsulation is pointless.
> 
> I think you've gotten too subjective on this matter.
 >
> You might as well
> say that we don't need no stinkin' OOP, we could all just be
> programming with goto's.
> 
> Sure, hey, let's do OOP in C, using structs, POD STRUCTS (!!!!), and
> PLAIN FUNCTIONS (!!!!) !!!!


Aren't you going a bit over the board here ? No need to go mad nor 
scream at us.

(snip usual stuff about lack of access restriction perceived as 
dangerous or whatever - cargo cult, really...).