On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 9:23:28 AM UTC-4, Tony Kelman wrote: > > Although Python gets by fine without any enforced privacy, Python is also > notorious for being poorly suited for writing large scale reliable systems > - lack of privacy of internals is only one factor among many, but it > contributes. >
What other factors do you see contributing to that in Python? (I've learned Python, but once I learned about Julia, never looked back at it). Are there any other impediments in Python to being able to write large scale reliable systems (which is precisely what my colleagues and I are trying to do), that are currently in Julia? However this will be very difficult to convince enough of the core > development group that it needs to be implemented (hint: step one is to > create a proof-of-concept implementation) as a first-class language > feature, when it could potentially be implemented via macros in user code. > Especially on top of getfield overloading, #1974. > That would be fine - I don't know enough about Julia meta-programming (that's next on my list of things I need to grok) to even know if it could be done as a macro. > P.S: Scott, for everyone's benefit, please refrain from using the "private > parts" metaphor. > > I just repeated it (from: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/sk8Gxq7ws3w/mvQbIb-FjRkJ), and if so, by the same token, people should stop using the "consenting adults" metaphor, which is *precisely* what leads to the "private parts" metaphor. Note: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-dev/Rj1xkrZkgcw/VE0K8Ji83QcJ, this has been around in Julia for years. In order for the "consenting adults" metaphor to work, you have to have the means of *denying* consent, if you so wish.
