On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:54 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote: > Terry Reedy wrote: >>> >>> When I speak of implementation vs interface I am speaking from a >>> strictly object oriented philosophy, as pedigree, from Grady Booch, whom >>> I consider to be the father of Object Oriented Analysis and Design >>> (Booch, OO A&D with apps, 1994). > >> >> Python is object based but not object oriented in the Booch sense. >> >> . . . and Python is not OOA&D based. > > With due respects Terry, these statements you have made are categorically > not true. Even a casual perusal of the Python supplied documentation and > helps (documented class interfaces) make it very clear that OOP and OOA&D > are at the very heart of the design of Python.
Why this lengthy discussion on whether Python is object-oriented or not? What difference does it make? The "implementation vs interface" difference has nothing to do with that. If I write a library, and I export a number of public functions, then updating the library in a way that breaks programs is a bad thing. But bad things sometimes have to happen. And that's why things are versioned. Object oriented programming/design/analysis/architecture/whatever has no effect on that; if you link against a library, or call on an object, you need to be able to depend on it. The interface of "sort([1,2,3,4])" is no different from "[1,2,3,4].sort()" just because one is objects and the other is functions. Maybe we need a new directive: from __past__ import cmpsort Chris Angelico -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
