I mostly agree with this On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Joseph L. Casale <jcas...@activenetwerx.com > wrote:
> > C# hardly seems any better than Java to me as far as a language goes. > > Which sounds pretty good to me, they are both high performance, mature > and rich languages. > > > Being forced into working with classes even when they are not > > appropriate is jarring. > > And 100% irrelevant, it doesn't prevent you from doing anything you > otherwise could without. > > > Because everything is forced into a class, one > > often ends up with very long classes in C#, spanning more than one file! > > Sorry, sounds like you need to learn SOLID, none of my classes > have ever taken this form. > There is no reason you cannot introduce a static class with pure static members (i.e. the Math class in System). A static class effectively becomes another namespace in C++ parlance. I'll admit the syntax is a bit odd, and enforces you, at a minimum to use the outer name a as a qualifier, but it's effectively the same effect. > > > Makes the code much harder to follow from a human point of view. After > > working in C# I very much appreciate Python's explicit self requirement > > for accessing local instance variables. > > So, prefix them with "this." and they will look the same? > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > self vs this, and you might start a language holy war. Of course "self" is the preferred to refer to an instance, just by python convention. Whether I agree with or not, I've seen "this" used to refer to instances where it is ambiguous in Python parlance between a "self" instance or a class instance - those instances are a bit weird, but there are rare occasions you do want to override class variables where this makes sense (they should be rare - because it's generally very hard to follow). -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
