thmpsn....@gmail.com a écrit :
On Feb 2, 2:55 am, Stephen Hansen <apt.shan...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 -
I'm missing the careful explanation. What I've heard is that the lack
of enforced encapsulation is "a danger". What I've heard is that
people want it because they've been told they should want it and
believe that. Why?
Who has said the latter? Are you just trying to spread FUD?
There have been no "careful explanations" to answer that, in my mind.
And thus my response is: the practical possibility of needing access
vastly outweights the theoretical situation that might go bad if
encapsulation wasn't there. Why? Because in any real situation, IMHO,
*forced* encapsulation is pointless.
I think you've gotten too subjective on this matter.
>
You might as well
say that we don't need no stinkin' OOP, we could all just be
programming with goto's.
Sure, hey, let's do OOP in C, using structs, POD STRUCTS (!!!!), and
PLAIN FUNCTIONS (!!!!) !!!!
Aren't you going a bit over the board here ? No need to go mad nor
scream at us.
(snip usual stuff about lack of access restriction perceived as
dangerous or whatever - cargo cult, really...).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
