On 6 Nov 2005 23:17:09 -0800, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > pcmanlin wrote: >> because i have a problem that python's oo feature is so great, but >> maybe when the project become larger, python's no-declaration cannot >> mapping the design to practice? >> >> I am not sure about it. > > As far cartoon-ware ( UML ) is concerned note that it is NOT Pythons > non-declarativeness but it's dynamicity
Yes; I've sometimes wondered what people do about duck typing in UML class diagrams. I hope they don't adapt their Python code by needlessly introducing inheritance! > that makes it hard to picture > it's design. Classes in Python are cheap, object structures are even > cheaper. That's why UML hardly provides an adequate representation of > Python programs Not the part where you spend weeks drawing pointless, infinitely detailed class diagrams, anyway. There are less detailed levels of those diagrams, and there are other diagram types. Most people would find some of them as useful (or useless) with Python as with other languages. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <jgrahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ algonet.se> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
