On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:27, Roy Smith wrote: > Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python. The > > relatively simple but powerful user class model made more sense to > > me than C++. So introducing someone to Python, where OOP is a > > choice, not a mandate, is how *I* would introduce a procedural > > programmer to the subject. YMMV. > > OOP is a choice in C++ too. You can write procedural C++ code; no > need to use classes at all if you don't want to. Something like Java > is a different story. Java *forces* you to use classes. Nothing > exists in Java that's not part of some class. >
Static methods act like C functions. Sure, they are members of classes, but in name only. Besides, just as you can use a procedural language in an OO fashion with enough programmer discipline, you can write in a procedural style with an OOP language with sufficient rebellion. Just use one class, put everything in it and create one instance on startup. Now that I think about it, Java is an exception to this. There are per class code and variable limits in the JVM, limiting the size of your procedural program masquerading as a class. Perhaps that is a good thing. Adam DePrince -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
