Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It cannot be denied that we are talking exclusively about OOP. End of
> story.
Yes it can be denied.
All data structures and primitives in Python are objects, but the
language is not exclusively object-oriented.
Yeah, I know, Steven. The discussion, from which my quote was pulled
from context, was in response to whether Python should be viewed as
object-based or object-oriented. Terry says object-based, my view is
object-oriented. (the reasons for both have already been stated)
I can use C++ for procedural programming (and I often do, to take
advantage of the //comments and iostreams cin and cout). But even though
I use C++ for procedural programming, I still know at heart that its an
object-oriented language---and a good thing too, or else there wouldn't
be an iostreams class to take advantage of. :)
I view Python the same way--- it is object-oriented and has some
obligation to the OOA&D paradigm even though it can be used procedurally
and|or functionally. Of course my functional experimentation and
research resides almost exclusively with haskel and erlang, I have
dabbled with Python's lambda and have enjoyed playing a bit with the
functional aspects of Python... albeit, I still consider Python an
object oriented language at heart.
I am gaining an understanding for the rich diversity of viewpoints
within this community regarding the evolution of this fantastic
language. I had no idea the viewpoints were *so* diverse.
kind regards,
m harris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
