On 07/08/12 15:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:19:31 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
But what *really* gets me is not the existence of poor terminology. I
couldn't care less what terminology Java programmers use among
themselves.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:19:31 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
>> But what *really* gets me is not the existence of poor terminology. I
>> couldn't care less what terminology Java programmers use among
>> themselves.
>
> I'd be most grateful if you cou
On 07/08/12 14:12, Ben Finney wrote:
lipska the kat writes:
The ONLY concept that you should never try to encapsulate is/are
human beings or their aliases.
You stated this in absolute, dogmatic terms. I thought at first you were
being hyperbolic for effect, but the situation that you present
lipska the kat writes:
> The ONLY concept that you should never try to encapsulate is/are
> human beings or their aliases.
You stated this in absolute, dogmatic terms. I thought at first you were
being hyperbolic for effect, but the situation that you present to
support this dogma is o
On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:55:24 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
[snip]
The clue is in the name 'Object Oriented' ... anything else is (or
should be) imp
On 07/08/12 06:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:24:10 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
er, the point I was trying to make is that when you say 'interface' it
could mean so many things. If you say 'facade' everyone knows exactly
what you are talking about. And that is EXACTLY the po
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:24:10 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> er, the point I was trying to make is that when you say 'interface' it
> could mean so many things. If you say 'facade' everyone knows exactly
> what you are talking about. And that is EXACTLY the point.
The whole point of design pattern
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:55:24 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
>>> particular part of our world that you are trying to
On 06/08/12 09:55, lipska the kat wrote:
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
snip
Well as you seem to be so concerned with terminology I'd have to
disagree with you here. An interface (in computing) has any number of
meanings
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate in
computer language. The language you use is (should be) irrel
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> I suspect), but can't say that I've ever used a "factory function"...
> If you've ever used an ordinary function decorator, you almost certainly
> have.
> If you've every created a closure, you definitely have.
Or anything with a __iter__ method...
--
http://mail.pyth
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:14:04 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> While I've probably used singletons (usually as sentinels in queues,
I don't know your code, but if I were to take a wild guess, I would say
that apart from None, and True/False, you probably haven't.
NotImplemented and Ellipsis are
On 06/08/2012 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snipped to death]
In my not-so-humble opinion, the popularity of Design Patterns has a lot
to do with the fact that they are so abstract and jargon-ridden that they
have become a badge of membership into an elite. Shorn of their excessive
abstractne
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
> Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
> particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate in
> computer language. The language you use is (should be) irrelevant.
That depends on how you defin
On 05/08/2012 20:46, lipska the kat wrote:
> Design Patterns by Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides
In article ,
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Please no, that's the worst possible book for someone trying to learn
> OOD in Python.
+1 what Mark said. It's certainly the classic patterns book, but most
On 05/08/2012 20:46, lipska the kat wrote:
[snip]
There is a book you could try, it's a bit dry and I read it when I can't
sleep, about 30 mins usually does it :-)
It's called Design Patterns by Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides
ISBN 0-201-63361-2.
They do use C++ code in examples but as they
On 04/08/12 16:49, Jean Dubois wrote:
I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
with Python.
Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate
in computer language. The language you use is
I found Mark Lutz's book Learning Python had two or three chapters on object
oriented programming from starting principles to more involved Python object
programming. It helped me immensely.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
(C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python, in fact
you could work with Python for a long time without really 'doing it' at all
(well other than calling methods/properties on existing API's). Having sa
19 matches
Mail list logo
