> > but does using classes mean one is > doing OOP? > Not necessarily, no. Also, one can do perfectly good OO in languages like javascript or Io which have no classes.
To answer the OP's question, assuming you're already a competent progammer in any one language, I'd recommend Fowler's 'Refactoring' as the best guide to good OO simply because it brings out so much in the way of bad OO and gives one techniques to move to cleaner, better encapsulated code. Here's a brief guide to the book (in a rather loud style, but the points are valid): http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/transformation Best, Sidu. http://c42.in On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:11 +0530, Noufal Ibrahim wrote: > > > May be because I haven't used much of the OO concepts, I'm feeling a > > bit > > > difficulty in understanding this. Getting a feel like most of the > > python > > > books deal like reader has already some conceptual understanding on > > Object > > > Oriented Concepts. > > > > [...] > > > > One bit of advice when approaching OO is to stay *away* from C++. It's > > syntax heavy, baroque style of doing things totally confuses > > people. Experience with Python cleaned up a lot of the brain damage I > > inflicted on myself with C++. > > > > Apart from that, Going through the official tutorial was what got me > > started. > > also python in a nutshell. btw, I have been using classes for a long > time - got into it with wxPython - but does using classes mean one is > doing OOP? > -- > regards > Kenneth Gonsalves > > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
