On 3/2/06, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:38:44 -0500
Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
> [...]
> 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.
This sounds like an article crying out to be written,
"(Learning) Design Patterns with Python".
Has it been written already?
Cheers,
Terry
Bruce Eckel began writing "Thinking In Python" it was last updated in 2001.
He's a busy dude with a lot on his plate, so finishing it or updating it isn't known.
I emailed him once about it and actually got a cordial reply which amounted to,..."I have no time but I'd love to finish it"
But, the draft does have some interesting tidbits in it and it's worth a look I think. You def. get the message that patterns apply a lot differently in python as compared to the {...;} languages.
Details here.
http://mindview.net/Books/Python/ThinkingInPython.html
--
Thomas G. Willis
-----------------------------------------------
http://i-see-sound.com
http://tomwillis.sonicdiscord.com
America, still more rights than North Korea
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
