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

[Michele Simionato]

On Jan 14, 4:18 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So I can claim that Python is not strictly object oriented until it
> gets encapsulation (in the sense of data hiding). That is simply a
> fact, and no amount of pleading or obfuscation will change it.
>
> Should Python get true encapsulation? I don't know. Maybe
> encapsulation cannot be added without excessive overhead or without
> compromising other more important aspects and features of the
> language. But I do know that not having encapsulation is a limitation
> to the use of Python for good software engineering. I may be in the
> minority in the Python "community" on this one, but I am apparently in
> the majority in the OO programming "community."

There are lots of Python developers (and most of the core developers)
that think the OO community is wrong about enforced encapsulation.
Personally, I think in a few years everybody will realize the mistake
of enforced encapsulation and that the OO definition in the Wikipedia
page will be changed. Even if not, Wikipedia definitions does not
matter much, everybody has his own idea of what OO means,
and the Python definition is good as any other. Don't get pissed off
on words.

             Michele Simionato