On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen: >>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to >>> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a >>> standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of "every object >>> interacts with other objects". >> >> The problem is that for most objects there isn't *the* interaction. Sure, >> you could split up complicated objects into small pieces with a smaller >> functionality, but at some point you have to stop. > > Yes. But that is the point, if you look at the quora post -- to > invert the object model and create mashups of simple modular data > types and working *upwards*. > >> Let's see how this >> concept fares with simple types such as integers or collections... >> >>>>>> 42 >> MyNumberType #would add the integer to your integer type >> >> That's just random. Why not multiply? Why not exponentiate? > > Well, as I noted in another post, that while these can be broken down > into their simpler component (addition and negative numbers), numbers > should probably be treated separately. > >>>>>> 42 >> MyCollectionType #would add the object into your collection: >>> *poof*: no more random syntaxiis for putting things in collections.\ >> >> So you've replaced one method of a collections API by your magical operator, >> for all collections. > > Yes -- for all collections. That's a pretty big gain right? >
Nope. No gain at all. Instead of learning the add() method, you learn the >> operator. You have not simplified anything. >> It seems that you are reinventing pipes (such as UNIX shell pipes). > > That is a very interesting comparison. That is something like what > I'm trying to do. In tandem with the Internet, I do see a kind of > synthesis of Web + O.S. integration -- ultimately, creating a "data > ecosystem". > > mark Yes, having the whole program run by chaining functions together is a neat idea. And it works great in functional languages- if you want that as a feature, use OCaml or Haskell. It works less well in imperative languages where you are manipulating data, not just passing it around. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
