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

[Russ P.]

On Jan 26, 6:09 am, Steve Holden <st... at holdenweb.com> wrote:

> Quite. Python is a language "for consenting adults". It has perceived
> deficiencies for certain software engineering environments. Can we drop
> the subject now? This horse was flogged to death long ago, and it's
> pointless and cruel to keep on beating the remains.

Judging from this thread, not everyone got the memo yet. At least
three or four people on this thread alone have argued that enforced
data hiding is of no value whatsoever for any application or domain.
And more than one of them has argued that Python is perfectly
appropriate for even the largest and most safety-critical projects.

We are moving into an era of increasing dependence on computers and
software for safety-critical, mission-critical, and  financial
systems. If people who do not understand the principles  necessary for
ultra-reliable software get in charge of developing these systems, we
will have serious problems that could have been avoided.

I suggested that maybe -- maybe! -- the versatility of Python could be
enhanced with enforced data hiding. I was careful to say several times
that I don't know if that can even be done in Python (with all its
introspection and so forth). And it would always be optional, of
course (as far as I know, no language forces anyone to declare
anything private).

Several people here seem to take that suggestion as an assault on
Python and, by projection, an assault on their worldview. We all know
that Python is a fantastic language for many purposes, but it is only
a language, and failing to recognize and address its limitations
serves no useful purpose.