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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 13, 7:50 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:

> You know what?  Computer science buzzwords mean jack squat to me.  I
> don't give a horse's tail whether some people label it a fundamental
> concept of object-oriented programming or not.  I think it's a bad
> thing.  And it's a bad thing for exactly the reason I said: it gives
> the library implementor the power to dictate to the user how they can
> and can't use the library.  The cultural impact that would have on the
> community is far worse, IMHO, than any short-sighted benefits like
> being able to catch an accidental usage of an internal variable.
> Trust would be replaced by mistrust, and programming in Python would
> go from a pleasant experience to constant antagonism.
>
> No thanks.  "Software engineering" be damned.  Python is better off
> the way it is.

You know what? The more I think about the kind of nonsense you and
others are spouting here, the more annoyed I get. I will gladly agree
that encapsulation may be more trouble than it's worth for small
applications, maybe even some medium sized ones, but you and others
here are making blanket proclamations that are just plain nonsense.

I suggest you call Boeing and tell them that encapsulation is more
trouble than it's worth for their 787 flight software. But please
don't do it if you ever wish to work for them, because you will be
proving conclusively that you don't have a clue about the kind of
software systems they produce.

I've wasted more than enough time with this nonsense.