In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I teased:
.
.
.
>with Python. I'd emphasize that Python *needs* AOP less
>than do Java and C++.
I've been asked in private e-mail if I "mean that Python is
aspect-oriented from its beginning."
Yes.
Well, yes and no. And also, I'm not sure. My personal sum-
mary is that aspect orientation is largely a palliative to
correct misfeatures in such object-oriented languages as Java.
Python supports object orientation but doesn't require it, and
practices "duck typing", so the benefits of aspect orientation
are doubly marginal for Python. It's not difficult for a Python
function to, say, sort a variety of different things, while
Java must contrive weird containers and casts to get the right
results. Java needs aspects, and Python doesn't.
On the other hand, Jim Hugunin says <URL:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/research/demeter/seminar/2003/april7/Jim%20Hugunin%20(The%20Next%20Steps%20For%20Aspect-).doc
>
AOP is a good and even powerful thing, and I know that Jim's
right about many subjects where I'm in error, so maybe I've got
this one wrong, too.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
