Quoth "Hendrik van Rooyen" <m...@microcorp.co.za>: > <rd.....mur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > > > > > You, sir, should be programming in some language other than Python. > > Why? - Python is object oriented, but I can write whole systems > without defining a single class. > By analogy, if data hiding is added to language, I could write a > whole system without hiding a single item. > Conversely, the lack of data hiding is perceived as a weakness, > and IMO harms the advocacy of the language - This is proven > by your statement above, whereby you are driving a user away, > simply because the language, in one small aspect, does not > give him what he wants, and the tenor of this thread has been > very much: "That's how it is - like it or lump it", and no amount > of careful explanation of why people want the feature has cut > any ice - It has all the time been countered with statements > about how the proponents of private attributes "don't need it", > (as if they are plain dumb), that an underscore convention is > "just as good", (It isn't), that you could crack it if you really > tried, (so what?), and other more specious reasons. > > This is IMO an arrogant attitude -
My apologies!! There was a smiley missing from the end of that statement above. However, you are right, even with the smiley added it would still be arrogant, and I regret that. The problem is that there is a fundamental philosophical divide here, and I don't think the advocates on either side are going to convince the other. This debate has happened many times. --RDM -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
