Link Details

Python isn't Java or C#. Its not that it simply has a different set of features or a different looking syntax, it is a completely different animal. You cannot write a Python program with the same mindset as when you are writing a Java or C# application. If your approach to Python (or other similar languages like Ruby) is to just do whatever it is you would do in a Java app except with Python syntax, you have completely missed the point.

BTW, encapsulation is possible in Python, even without the private keyword. What isn't possible is to have the compiler/interpreter enforce that encapsulation by refusing to build or crashing if someone attempts to bypass that encapsulation.,

Well said.

I completely agree that Java and C# are very different from Python. No better or worse, just different. I'm not attacking Python, I am just saying that the author took something that is lacking in python and tried to make it something to be proud of. If the authors of Python had not thought that encapsulation at some level was necessary they would not have added the double underscore syntax for restricting access to variables (although this doesn't restrict access, it just changes their name so that they are harder to access by accident). I did address your comments on my post though.,

Well said.

Good article. I don't agree 100%, but it's well argued and thought-provoking.

I think the author misses the point. The lack of private attributes in Python is not a feature nor a deficiency; it's a difference in philosophy. Encapsulation is not threatened by public methods. So long as documentation is good, the convention of naming internal variables/methods with an underscore will (hopefully) ensure that their use externally is done with prudence. Trust that other programmers know what they are doing. If they don't, then there is little you can do to fix the problem in any case.