In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since Python does so many things different, especially compared to > compiled and statically typed languages, do most of the basic design > patterns still apply when writing Python code? If I were to read a > design pattern book (such as Head First Design Patterns), could I apply > their Java examples to Python easily enough, or does Python require a > different perspective when applying patterns? Many of the classic design patterns apply just fine to Python, at least in the high-level view. On the other hand, much (most?) of what's in the classic design pattern books is so tied up with ways around C++/Java type bondage, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees. For example, take the most classic of all patterns, Singleton. A typical C++ Singleton treatment will be all about making constructors private and shit like that. None of that carries over to Python. What I would do in Python is have a module-level factory function which caches a single instance of the class to return to the 2nd and subsequent caller and not get my panties in a twist over the fact that some clever programmer could find away around my code and force creation of a second instance. The basic concepts in the pattern books are worth knowing. You just have to be able to tease apart the concepts from the language-specific cruft that so often obfuscates the descriptions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
