Jaroslaw Zabiello wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:20:44 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
[Quoting JZ...] > >> Ruby > >> has nice security system (private, protected, public scopes for methods and > >> attributes, > > > > This is not "security", this is data-hiding. > > No. Data hiding are in Python. Ruby uses security similiar to Java. If the > class has method marked as private it cannot be used in children classes. Can you please stop using the term security in a vague way whilst pointing the finger at Java? Sure, Python doesn't really have the "security" you refer to, apart from elementary protection using name-mangling (which is mostly good enough) for double-underscore attributes, but mentioning "Java" and "security" in the same sentence whilst only really referring to private/protected/public/final is misleading: Java has an entire spectrum of security features that are found neither in Python nor Ruby. [...] > Python has no security at all. I has only convention and mangling. Of > course somebode can say, it is enough, and maybe it is. But I think, that > this might be another reason why Java guys prefer Ruby to Python. Whatever "no security" means, and I ask you to choose your terminology more carefully, both Ruby and Python have some way to go before supporting most of Java's more useful security features. Certainly, the Java guys can't be flocking to Ruby specifically because it lacks bytecode verification and a fairly mature sandboxing mechanism. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
