In article <517131cd$0$29977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:14:13 -0400, Robert Harper wrote: > > > In short, there is no such thing as a "paradigm". > > Of course there is. A paradigm is a distinct way of thinking, a > philosophy if you will. To say that there is no such thing as a paradigm > is to say that all ways of thinking about a topic are the same, and > that's clearly nonsense. This thread has gone off in a strange direction. When I said: > One of the nice things about OOP is it means so many different things to > different people. All of whom believe with religious fervor that they > know the true answer. I was indeed talking about the ways people think about programming. For example, OOP in C++ is very much about encapsulation. People declare all data private, and writing setter/getter functions which carefully control what access outside entities have to your data. Often, when you talk to C++ people, they will tell you that encapsulation is what OOP is all about. What they are doing is saying, C++ isa OOPL, and C++ has encapsulation, therefore OOPL implies encapsulation. When they look at something like Python, they say, "That's not object oriented because you don't have private data". I suppose people who grew up learning Python as their first language look at something like C++ and say, "That's not OOP because classes aren't objects", or something equally silly. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list