On Jul 19, 1:56 pm, Lipska the Kat <lip...@lipskathekat.com> wrote: > Academic twiddling with the distorted meaning of words spun by > vested interests is all very interesting I'm sure but doesn't really > advance the discussion does it?
Well lets back up the discussion a bit. You coming from a Java background have one view of what OO means. Others coming from a python background have a different view. In particular you said: > Python looks like an interesting language and I will certainly spend > time getting to know it but at the moment it seems to me that calling it > an Object Oriented language is just plain misleading. > On 19/07/12 07:09, rusi wrote: > > In layman-speak and object is well, a thing. > > But we are not talking in 'layman-speak' we are discussing concepts that > are familiar to us in the 'language of the domain' at least I though we > were. > > And one of the most pervasive (and stupidist) metaphors is the parent- > > child relation of classes. > > Just for the record, in the normal world 'creatures/beings' reproduce > > and therefore inherit. > > But we are not talking about the 'real world' are we, we are talking > about representing complex interacting human concepts in a way that can > be understood by humans and translated into a form that can be executed > on a binary machine So when multiple technical understandings are in conflict it seems reasonable to find a frame in which the different viewpoints could resolve. The ultimate such frame is the completely de-jargonized frame ie laymanspeak. [How far one can/should go toward that ultimate is another quesion] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list