Davor schrieb:
I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
that OO is totally secondary in Python.
OO is not secondary in Python. It's secondary for you :) And Python
leaves the choice to you.
In fact,
object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with identity*
in python.
Eliminating "nothing but" makes this a true statement :)
Love this approach. In fact, you can very easily implement
your own *OO model* completely separate of Python's OO model... Now I
actually strongly believe that Python's author has introduced the whole
OO model just to attract and make happy OO population...
I believe that your belief is wrong :) Guido van Rossum has introduced
OO to Python because it's a useful concept.
and you can definitely be more productive using Python's structured
programming than Java/C++ OO programming :-)... and Python is probably
the best example why we should have skipped OO all together..
Sigh. Proceed as you like but be aware that dogmatism - OO as well as
anti-OO is always a poor guide. OO wasn't invented as a marketing buzz
but to support programming styles that emerged in non-OO languages to
control the increasing complexity of programs.
so you get a nice program with separate data structures and functions
that operate on these data structures, with modules as containers for
both (again ideally separated). Very simple to do and maintain no matter
what OO preachers tell you...
The bad thing about OO preachers is not OO but preaching. And you
are preaching, too ;)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
