>> > We've not had an excellent dynamic OO language since
>> > Smalltalk, IMO.
>
>I would say that "excellence" in object oriented programming is not a
>strong design goal of Python. Python tries to support OOP well, but
>not to enhance OOP to the detriment of other, more important goals.
okay.
n since Smalltalk.
and i was a big time LISP hacker once. Python obviously includes a lot
of things which Smalltalk did not and does not have, simply because it's
culture is more modern and Python's community is so much more vibrant.
and it don't hurt that it has good numeri
>Guido was opposed to modifying builtin types before Java existed. It's
>similar to his opposition to dynamic syntax.
Opposition or not, the language definition is there. Surely Smalltalk's
OO style can be respected. Smalltalkers have been doing OO in a dynamic
context longer than many. There
>Jan Theodore Galkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Comments? Suggestions?
><http://www.ruby-lang.org>
Luc, don't misunderstand: There's nothing at all wrong with Python nor
am I suggesting there is. I'm just exploring how far I can go using its
dy
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:49:30 -0500, Jan Theodore Galkowski wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> One of the things I'd like to do with Python is find a way to
>> consistently implement Smalltalk's "loose methods". This is a
>> capability whereby additional metho
Hi.
One of the things I'd like to do with Python is find a way to
consistently implement Smalltalk's "loose methods". This is a
capability whereby additional methods can be added dynamically to
existing classes.
In some respects, it's possible with Python. While "object" cannot be
touched, it's
