RetroSearch Browse

Sat Dec 20 09:39:10 EST 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041268.html

On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 09:08:43AM -0500, Aahz wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2003, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >
> > one of the things that is strangely lacking in python is the ability
> > to restrict access to python objects, a la public, protected and
> > private from c++.
> >
> > perl users find this to be utterly incomprehensible and reprehensible,
> > especially the bits where conventions are obeyed - and followed! -
> > about putting underscores in front of function names.
> >
> > from a restricted execution perspective, this is not really okay.
> 
> Yup.  That really is the fundamental issue.  Python has been deliberately
> designed to let programmers do whatever they want; it's a "let the
> grownups play" perspective.  

 as python moves into a more mainstream acceptance, it becomes more
 of an issue to let the kiddies bash themselves with rubber hammers.

 [i mention this because a few years ago, a six year old bashed his dad
  over the head with a hammer after watching tom and jerry beat the
  stuffing out of each other on telly.]

> Python's design.  Another major reason is because restricted execution
> from within Python can never completely solve the problem unless we
> devote vast amounts of effort.  Consider the following two snippets of
> code:
> 
>     100 ** 100 ** 100
>     [None] * (10 ** 10)
> 
> The first chews up CPU; the second chews up memory.

 i infer from these two observations that some of the requirements
 of restricted execution could be to conserve CPU and memory?

 l.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041268.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Capabilities - published interfaces