That’s not quite true: Yes, your $99 license is a life-time license, but that license only includes 3 years worth of updates. After that you have to pay $80, if you want another 3 years worth of updates. Of course, the alternative is just putting up with the occasional nag, which is why I still haven’t gotten around to renewing my license

I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

No gods, no masters

A single underscore is just a naming convention, but double underscores triggers automatic name-mangling of the variable in question:

$ cat test.py
class foo:
        def __init__(self, x):
                self.__x = x

f = foo(1)
f.__x
$ python3 test.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/mnt/d/test.py", line 6, in <module>
    f.__x
AttributeError: 'foo' object has no attribute '__x'

However, much like private/protected variables in java, this is pretty trivial to circumvent if you want.

But I don’t believe that you can argue that access modifiers are required for OO not to be shoehorned into a language, not when influential OO languages like Smalltalk didn’t have this feature either. Java just happens to be closer to C++, where public/private/protected is much more rigidly enforced than either Java or Python

In what way does OOP feel shoehorned in with Python? I ask since that is not my own impression of the language.

Would you also be willing to share what language(s) you feel do(es) OOP without it being shoehorned in?