Chris Carlen a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >> Chris Carlen a écrit : > > >[edit] > >>> Must possibly learn a completely new way of thinking (OOP) >> >> >> Not necessarly. While Python is OO all the way down - meaning that >> everything you'll work with will be an object (functions included) -, >> it doesn't *force* you into OO (IOW : you don't have to define classes >> to write a Python program). You can as well use a procedural - or even >> somewhat functional - approach, and most Python programs I've seen so >> far are usually a mix of the three. >> >>> not just a new language syntax. >> >> >> You forgot one of the most important part of a language : idioms. And >> it's definitively *not* idiomatic in Python to use classes when a >> simpler solution (using plain functions and modules) is enough. > > > I see. That's very promising. I guess some articles I read painted a > picture of religiousity among OOP programmers.
That's alas a common disease - I'd say the best way to be definitively disgusted from OO is to read comp.lang.object :( > But that is not the > impression I am getting at all on the street. Heck. As you said, the important is to get things done. And I guess that's why we all (here) love Python. Last time I had to work on a Pascal program (actually Delphi's ObjectPascal, but the whole thing was almost caricaturally procedural), I found myself having to write tens of lines of code for thing that would have been no-brainer one-liners in Python, and define new types (records - Pascal's structs) where Python's builtin dict type would have do the trick. It's not a matter of procedural vs OO vs functional, it's a matter of using the appropriate tool for the job. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
