John Zelle wrote:
> I think it's important here to differentiate between doing OOP, that is,
> doing
> design with classes vs. just using objects. Unlike Kirby, I personally see
> nothing wrong with going the procedural route with these students, but I
> don't think that using some objects in this context is particularly confusing
> to students. I can only make sense of the statement "OO is way more powerful
> than you need to get into" in the context of teaching OO design
> (encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance). Using pre-existing object types
> requires no more conceptual machinery than function calls, and is really just
> more procedural programming.
I agree entirely. In fact, I use the math module early on (for simple trig) or
the
random module, each with the dot notation. I don't think the calling syntax is
the
problem, and as you point out is just like function calls. I don't consider
that
OOP, even though in the background it is implemented that way. To carry it
that far,
you'd have to admit that:
a=1
is OOP, which I think is a bit far. I consider OOP when you start looking at
class
definitions and design with classes as you say above.
bb
--
-----------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais
_______________________________________________
Edu-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
