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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 26, 1:07 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli... at websiteburo.invalid> wrote:

> No. I can change the *team's* code. Please *read*. "team's ownership",
> ok ? Or do I have to spell it out loud ? TEAM'S OWNERSHIP. Uh. You get
> the message, now ?

Team ownership doesn't necessarily mean that you can just change code
at will. In industry, teams usually have a leader that you need to
check with before you can change an interface. A language with
enforced access restriction merely provides language support for such
coordination. That was my only point.

> > Would you give all those developers your password to get into the
> > system? No? Wait a minute ... you mean you wouldn't "trust" them with
> > your password? But what about "openness"? Are you some sort of fascist
> > or what?
>
> Goodwin point. You loose. Good bye again, Mr P.

You missed the point once again. In asking if you are a "fascist," I
was *parodying* your attitude that languages with enforced access
restrictions are for "fascists" who don't trust their co-workers or
employees. [I don't recall if you actually used that word or if it was
someone else, but you did use "B&D", which carries the same general
impression.]

So I parodied your hyperbole, and you dismiss me for it. Without
realizing it, you just dismissed yourself, sir. Thanks for saving me
the trouble.