Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
--
Timo Virkkala
Not a troll, just another case of premature optimization run amok.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Davor wrote:
so you get a nice program with separate data structures and functions
that operate on these data structures, with modules as containers for
both (again ideally separated). Very simple to do and maintain [...]
Replace "modules" with "classes" in the above quote, and you have the
very
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? (As you
> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
> when there is nothing left to take away."
Thanks, that was it! ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> There is not much than can be done at the Python level. But I
would
> >> see with interest a Python spinoff geared towards simplicity.
>
> >I think this would be useless because advanced concepts exist for
> >a reason. A simplified spin-off would aquire advanced conce
PA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. But even with the "best" tool and the "best" intents, projects
> still fail. In fact, most IT projects are considered failures:
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3423238
The main thesis of the article you quote (although it a
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Some complexity is not needed, and I am sure even in Python
> something could be dropped. But it is difficult to find what can
> be removed. Remember that Saint-Exupery quote? Something
> like "a work of art is finished when there is nothing left to remove?"
Sa
Peter Maas:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> Davor is right: even if
>> you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
>> team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that
just
>> do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
>> penalized by it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, if in Python the algorithm for the reverse function
applies to many kinds of objects, it just needs to be coded once,
whereas a reverse method would have to provided for each class that
uses it (perhaps through inheritance).
Indeed, this is why Python not only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Davor is right: even if
you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that just
do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
penalized by it.
No, because Python does not
Davor wrote:
data structures
> and
> functions that operate on these data structures
Eh? What do you think a class is?
Py> data = range(10)
Py> list.extend(data, range(5))
Py> list.sort(data)
Py> print data
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
The fact that data.extend(range(5)) and data.s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why was C++ invented? What you have described can be done in C,
Pascal, and Fortran 90, all of which are generally classified as
procedural programming languages. As Lutz and Ascher say in "Learning
Python", in object-based programming one can pass objects around, use
Davor schrieb:
I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
that OO is totally secondary in Python.
OO is not secondary in Python. It's secondary for you :) And Python
leaves the choice to you.
In fact,
object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with iden
Terry Reedy schrieb:
But if the class method syntax were
manditory, there would be class and/or class hierarchy bloat due to the
unlimited number of possible functions-of-a-float and large number of
actual such functions that have been written.
You are right. I'm not an OO purist, I just wanted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the OO way is slightly more obscure. It's obvious what x =
reverse(x) does, but it is not clear unless you have the source code
whether x.reverse() reverses x or if it returns a reversed list. If
x.reverse() does the former, a disadvantage relative to the procedural
Davor wrote:
Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems people get
upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and what I did not expect at
all at this forum as I believed Python people should not be
Davor wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
> dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
> have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
> "simple procedural" stuff rather than having to deal with a de
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 22:28 -0500, Davor wrote:
> I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
> that OO is totally secondary in Python. In fact,
> object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with identity*
> in python. Love this approach.
I was really
> "beliavsky" == beliavsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
beliavsky> I think the OO way is slightly more obscure. It's
beliavsky> obvious what x = reverse(x) does, but it is not clear
beliavsky> unless you have the source code whether x.reverse()
beliavsky> reverses x or if it re
> "beliavsky" == beliavsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
beliavsky> I think the OO way is slightly more obscure. It's
beliavsky> obvious what x = reverse(x) does, but it is not clear
beliavsky> unless you have the source code whether x.reverse()
You don't need to read the src, you
"The object-oriented programming paradigm has an undeserved reputation
as being complicated; most of the complexity of languages such as C++
and Java has nothing to do with their object orientation but comes
instead from the type declarations and the mechanisms to work around
them. This is a prime
John Hunter wrote:
> > "Davor" == Davor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Davor> not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems
> Davor> people get upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and
> Davor> what I did not expect at all at this forum as I believed
> Davo
I'd like to thank everyone for their replies. The main important lesson
I got is:
Python does not have that many issues with misuse of OO as compared to
Java/C++ because it's *dynamically* typed language and extremely
powerful *dictionary* data structure.
I browsed docs a bit today, and they a
> "Davor" == Davor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Davor> not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems
Davor> people get upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and
Davor> what I did not expect at all at this forum as I believed
Davor> Python people should not be
Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems people get
upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and what I did not expect at
all at this forum as I believed Python people should not be so OO
hardco
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
--
Timo Virkkala
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Davor wrote:
> > thanks for the link
> >
> >
> >>know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
> >>discussion about adding OO to Lua.
> >
> >
> > I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support
OO
> > if they want to attract a larger user
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Bechmann (w) wrote:
> know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
> discussion about adding OO to Lua.
>From my quick glance at the language last year I recall that one can
access elements of tables (in Python: dict()) with this syntax:
``tbl.att
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 21:44, PA a écrit :
> On Jan 26, 2005, at 21:35, Francis Girard wrote:
> >> Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
> >> "better" or "worst" than another one.
> >
> > I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit
> > yo
On Jan 26, 2005, at 21:35, Francis Girard wrote:
Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
"better" or "worst" than another one.
I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit
your
needs. But I think that's what you meant anyway.
Yes. But even with
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 18:55, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Your Four Steps to Python Object Oriented Programming - vars, lists, dicts,
> and finally classes is great. It makes this thread worthwhile. I saved it
> and perhaps will use it sometime (with credit to you) to explain same to
> others.
I
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 20:47, PA a écrit :
> Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
> "better" or "worst" than another one.
I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit your
needs. But I think that's what you meant anyway.
>
> Cheers
>
On Jan 26, 2005, at 20:39, Francis Girard wrote:
When I think that comapnies
pay big money for these kind of monsters after having seen a few ppt
slides
about it, it makes me shiver.
Right... but... since when does an implementation language of any sort
save a project from its own doom?
Project
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 02:43, Jeff Shannon a écrit :
> In statically typed languages like C++ and Java, inheritance trees are
> necessary so that you can appropriately categorize objects by their
> type. Since you must explicitly declare what type is to be used
> where, you may need fine gra
"Peter Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Davor schrieb:
>> so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but when I
>> started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
>> stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
>
>
Peter Maas wrote:
> Davor schrieb:
> > so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but
when I
> > started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly
OO)
> > stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
>
> So you think f.write('Hello world') is bloated and
fil
"Davor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python
at
> > all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS
batch
> > files for Windows. Both are "nice&simple" scripting languages free
Davor schrieb:
so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but when I
started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
So you think f.write('Hello world') is bloated and file_write(f,'Hello
world')
is not? T
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? (As you
Hello Davor,
> Also, is anyone aware of any scripting language that could be considered
> as "Python minus OO stuff"?
Maybe Lisp (http://clisp.cons.org/, http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html)
or Scheme (http://www.plt-scheme.org/software/mzscheme/,
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/boo
Davor
Umm, just curious -- why would you want to not use the OO stuff?
Python is like pseudocode (the basic OO, which is mostly common to
most OO languages, isn't really complicated).
Moreover, using Python without OO would be like, um, eating mango seed
without the pulp. :)
>
> --
It's perfectly possible to write good python code without using
classes. (and using functions/normal control flow).
You will have a problem with terrminology though - in python everything
is an object (more or less). Common operations use attributes and
methods of standard objects.
For example :
I can't resist to point here to the
Re: How to input one char at a time from stdin?
posting in this newsgroup to demonstrate, what
this thread is about.
Claudio
> >On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:38:13 -0700, Brent W. Hughes
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'd like to get a character from stdin, perf
Davor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no one ever had to document structured patterns - which definitely
> exist - but seem to be obvious enough that there is no need to write a
> book about them...
You _gotta_ be kidding -- what do you think, e.g., Wirth's "Algorithms
plus Data Structures Equals Pr
Davor wrote:
thanks for the link
know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
discussion about adding OO to Lua.
I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support OO
if they want to attract a larger user base :-(...
Tell me, have you ever defined a C structure
Davor, Before I learned Python, I too was put off by OO hype. And I
suppose I still would be if I still listened to it. But Python's class
statement is somewhere inbetween a C typedef and C++/Jave classes.
Stripped down pretty much to the essentials and only used when really
useful, it made m
thanks for the link
> know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
> discussion about adding OO to Lua.
I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support OO
if they want to attract a larger user base :-(...
davor
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
M.E.Farmer,
first to clarify few things - I'm neither manager nor professionally
involved in code development - I'm just embarking on a small project
that I would like to attract some programmers to later on and make it a
nice open-source system. Based on my previous experience with few SMALL
proj
even if I follow the other answers above - language-wise and
management-advise-wise - just for the sake of completeness - I would
like to point you to Lua: http://www.lua.org/
1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
=> yes, nearly pure ANSI-C should compile
2. good ba
Davor,
I was gonna let it go but I never was good at shutin up ;)
The greatest strength a manager can have is delegation. And with that
add the ability to best use the resources available .
It seems you are telling me that :
1) You do not understand most programming concepts
2) You are not wil
Davor wrote:
M.E.Farmer wrote:
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language ...
If using a different language doesn't require/encourage
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:01:23 -0800, Davor wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
> dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
> have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
> "simple procedural" stuf
Davor wrote:
[...] what I need that Python has and bash&dos don't is:
1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
2. good basic library (already there)
3. modules for structuring the application (objects unnecessary)
4. high-level data structures (dictionaries & lists)
5. no strong
"Davor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
> dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
> have additional developers...
If you think your project is valuable enough to eventually be "Open
Source",
you can b
Davor wrote:
> M.E.Farmer wrote:
>> Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
>> This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
>
> that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
> different language - actually most python scripts that I have se
M.E.Farmer wrote:
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language - actually most python scripts that I have seen do
not even use OO which
Davor wrote:
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
"simple procedural" stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that
On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python at
all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS batch
files for Windows. Both are "nice&simple" scripting languages free of
object oriented contamination.
not really, what I need that Python has and bas
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
"simple procedural" stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that will be con
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
Davor wrote:
> (note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
> others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-))
Don't worry we didn't get confused, it was quite cl
"Davor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, ...
Of course!
> or the OO
> constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
> embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
You can always *write your o
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
Sure, but you will got problem with libraries. Some of them are in fact
frameworks and need some subclassin
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
Hmmm... sorta depends on how you define write procedural code... If
you mean, can you write Python code w
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? (As you can see I'm
64 matches
Mail list logo
