On 18/10/2013 21:32, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong"
"weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually.
The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs.
dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. object based vs. true
OO.
That probably starts another flame war, but this thread is already running
around with its hair on fire.
I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of
object-oriented programming. The former can be implemented elegantly in a wide
range of languages without much in the way of specific language support, the
latter needs to designed into the language to allow a modicum of polymorhpic
readability.
It's an important distinction, because a project that is constrained to C
should (IMHO) target an object-based design pattern but not an object-oriented
one. That said, I'm open to disputation-by-example on this point, provided the
example is reasonably small and pretty. (If the only polymorphic C code is ugly
and non-small, it sort of proves my point).
As far as I'm concerned all of the above belongs on
comp.theoretical.claptrap, give me practicality beats purity any day of
the week :)
--
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this one doesn't.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
