In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> "ToddLMorgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Are there python specific equivalents to the common Patterns,
>> >Anti-Patterns and Refactoring books that are so prevalent as
>> >reccomended reading in C++ and Java?
>
>> I don't think they exist. Such books are targeted more towards
>> development in a corporate environment, where every proposal has to go
>> through multiple layers of management, and nothing is ever done by
>> individuals working alone, always by "teams" working on separate parts
>> of the project
>
>Hey, patterns are important. They keep people from reinventing the
>wheel and banging their head against the wall.
If you have to write more than one piece of code from the same
"pattern", then that _is_ "reinventing the wheel and banging their head
against the wall."
The correct way to avoid reinventing the wheel is to reuse code.
For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about "patterns".
I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of ...
the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I
consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect
only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code
is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't
powerful enough....
-- Paul Graham <http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
