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

[Roy Smith]

In article 
<aaac5b77-0b2e-48fa-9e01-b8cd1cd68833 at v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
 "Russ P." <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I have no idea if Python is strictly anything.  What I do know is that it's 
a useful tool.  I'll take useful over OOO (Object Oriented Orthodoxy) any 
day.

People get all worked up over OO as if it were some kind of religion.  If I 
want religion, I'll go to shul.  What I want from a programming language is 
a tool that lets me get my work done.  If I transgress against some sacred 
tenet of OO religion, it is, as Rev. Dupas would say, all right.

Earlier in this thread, somebody (name elided to avoid me getting pegged 
for a indulging in a spelling flame):

> Bare in mind also, that enfocing access control / policing as you
> called it has a performance hit as the machine (the Python vm)
> has to perform checks each time members of an object are accessed.

All I can say to that is, "He who bares his mind, soon gets to the naked 
truth".