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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 21, 9:34 am, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky... at uh.cu> wrote:

> But you keep failing to explay why do you need it to be _part of the standard_
> library (or whatever).

Technically, it doesn't need to be. But if someone proposes using
particular language for a major safety-critical project, the critical
features realistically need to be part of the standard language or at
the very least in the standard library.

The requirements are different for government-regulated code than they
are for non-critical commercial code, as well they should be. Imagine
trying to explain to the FAA that you are going to use a language that
is inappropriate by itself for a safety-critical system but will be
appropriate with the addition of third-party software. That just won't
fly.

Then again, the FAA might not approve Python for flight-critical or
safety-critical code even if it gets enforced data hiding, so perhaps
the point is moot.

> If you need it in your project, _use_ it. If you don't, then don't use it. If
> _you_ need that thing you call security, just use it already and quit
> complaining that we don't use it. Is there a policy in your project that you
> can't use any external?

I don't recall complaining that anyone doesn't use something. In fact,
in the unlikely event that enforced data hiding is ever added to
Python, nobody would be forced to use it (except perhaps by your boss
or your customer, but that's another matter).