Davor wrote:
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
simple procedural stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
Davor wrote:
Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems people get
upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and what I did not expect at
all at this forum as I believed Python people should not be
Terry Reedy schrieb:
But if the class method syntax were
manditory, there would be class and/or class hierarchy bloat due to the
unlimited number of possible functions-of-a-float and large number of
actual such functions that have been written.
You are right. I'm not an OO purist, I just wanted
Davor schrieb:
I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
that OO is totally secondary in Python.
OO is not secondary in Python. It's secondary for you :) And Python
leaves the choice to you.
In fact,
object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why was C++ invented? What you have described can be done in C,
Pascal, and Fortran 90, all of which are generally classified as
procedural programming languages. As Lutz and Ascher say in Learning
Python, in object-based programming one can pass objects around, use
Davor wrote:
data structures
and
functions that operate on these data structures
Eh? What do you think a class is?
Py data = range(10)
Py list.extend(data, range(5))
Py list.sort(data)
Py print data
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
The fact that data.extend(range(5)) and data.sort()
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Davor is right: even if
you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that just
do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
penalized by it.
No, because Python does not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Furthermore, if in Python the algorithm for the reverse function
applies to many kinds of objects, it just needs to be coded once,
whereas a reverse method would have to provided for each class that
uses it (perhaps through inheritance).
Indeed, this is why Python not only
Peter Maas:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Davor is right: even if
you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that
just
do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
penalized by it.
No,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Some complexity is not needed, and I am sure even in Python
something could be dropped. But it is difficult to find what can
be removed. Remember that Saint-Exupery quote? Something
like a work of art is finished when there is nothing left to remove?
PA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. But even with the best tool and the best intents, projects
still fail. In fact, most IT projects are considered failures:
http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3423238
The main thesis of the article you quote (although it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is not much than can be done at the Python level. But I
would
see with interest a Python spinoff geared towards simplicity.
I think this would be useless because advanced concepts exist for
a reason. A simplified spin-off would aquire advanced concepts
over
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
when there is nothing left to take away.
Thanks, that was it! ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as Python minus OO
stuff? (As you
Davor wrote:
so you get a nice program with separate data structures and functions
that operate on these data structures, with modules as containers for
both (again ideally separated). Very simple to do and maintain [...]
Replace modules with classes in the above quote, and you have the
very
Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
--
Timo Virkkala
Not a troll, just another case of premature optimization run amok.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no one ever had to document structured patterns - which definitely
exist - but seem to be obvious enough that there is no need to write a
book about them...
You _gotta_ be kidding -- what do you think, e.g., Wirth's Algorithms
plus Data Structures Equals
I can't resist to point here to the
Re: How to input one char at a time from stdin?
posting in this newsgroup to demonstrate, what
this thread is about.
Claudio
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:38:13 -0700, Brent W. Hughes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to get a character from stdin, perform some
It's perfectly possible to write good python code without using
classes. (and using functions/normal control flow).
You will have a problem with terrminology though - in python everything
is an object (more or less). Common operations use attributes and
methods of standard objects.
For example :
?
Python is like pseudocode (the basic OO, which is mostly common to
most OO languages, isn't really complicated).
Moreover, using Python without OO would be like, um, eating mango seed
without the pulp. :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
Premshree Pillai
http
Hello Davor,
Also, is anyone aware of any scripting language that could be considered
as Python minus OO stuff?
Maybe Lisp (http://clisp.cons.org/, http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html)
or Scheme (http://www.plt-scheme.org/software/mzscheme/,
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as Python minus OO
stuff? (As you
Davor schrieb:
so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but when I
started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
So you think f.write('Hello world') is bloated and file_write(f,'Hello
world')
is not?
Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python
at
all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS
batch
files for Windows. Both are nicesimple scripting languages free of
object
Peter Maas wrote:
Davor schrieb:
so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but
when I
started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly
OO)
stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
So you think f.write('Hello world') is bloated and
Peter Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Davor schrieb:
so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but when I
started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now.
So you
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 02:43, Jeff Shannon a écrit :
In statically typed languages like C++ and Java, inheritance trees are
necessary so that you can appropriately categorize objects by their
type. Since you must explicitly declare what type is to be used
where, you may need fine
On Jan 26, 2005, at 20:39, Francis Girard wrote:
When I think that comapnies
pay big money for these kind of monsters after having seen a few ppt
slides
about it, it makes me shiver.
Right... but... since when does an implementation language of any sort
save a project from its own doom?
Project
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 20:47, PA a écrit :
Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
better or worst than another one.
I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit your
needs. But I think that's what you meant anyway.
Cheers
Cheers
On Wednesday 26 January 2005 18:55, Terry Reedy wrote:
Your Four Steps to Python Object Oriented Programming - vars, lists, dicts,
and finally classes is great. It makes this thread worthwhile. I saved it
and perhaps will use it sometime (with credit to you) to explain same to
others.
I
On Jan 26, 2005, at 21:35, Francis Girard wrote:
Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
better or worst than another one.
I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit
your
needs. But I think that's what you meant anyway.
Yes. But even with the
Le mercredi 26 Janvier 2005 21:44, PA a écrit :
On Jan 26, 2005, at 21:35, Francis Girard wrote:
Project fails for many reasons but seldomly because one language is
better or worst than another one.
I think you're right. But you have to choose the right tools that fit
your
needs. But
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Frank Bechmann (w) wrote:
know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
discussion about adding OO to Lua.
From my quick glance at the language last year I recall that one can
access elements of tables (in Python: dict()) with this syntax:
``tbl.attr``
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Davor wrote:
thanks for the link
know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
discussion about adding OO to Lua.
I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support
OO
if they want to attract a larger user base :-(...
Tell
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
--
Timo Virkkala
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Timo Virkkala wrote:
This guy has got to be a troll. No other way to understand.
not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems people get
upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and what I did not expect at
all at this forum as I believed Python people should not be so OO
Davor == Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Davor not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems
Davor people get upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and
Davor what I did not expect at all at this forum as I believed
Davor Python people should not be so OO
I'd like to thank everyone for their replies. The main important lesson
I got is:
Python does not have that many issues with misuse of OO as compared to
Java/C++ because it's *dynamically* typed language and extremely
powerful *dictionary* data structure.
I browsed docs a bit today, and they
John Hunter wrote:
Davor == Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Davor not really - it was not my intention at all - but it seems
Davor people get upset whenever this OO stuff is mentioned - and
Davor what I did not expect at all at this forum as I believed
Davor Python people
The object-oriented programming paradigm has an undeserved reputation
as being complicated; most of the complexity of languages such as C++
and Java has nothing to do with their object orientation but comes
instead from the type declarations and the mechanisms to work around
them. This is a prime
beliavsky == beliavsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
beliavsky I think the OO way is slightly more obscure. It's
beliavsky obvious what x = reverse(x) does, but it is not clear
beliavsky unless you have the source code whether x.reverse()
You don't need to read the src, you just need
beliavsky == beliavsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
beliavsky I think the OO way is slightly more obscure. It's
beliavsky obvious what x = reverse(x) does, but it is not clear
beliavsky unless you have the source code whether x.reverse()
beliavsky reverses x or if it returns a
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 22:28 -0500, Davor wrote:
I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
that OO is totally secondary in Python. In fact,
object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with identity*
in python. Love this approach.
I was really
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as Python minus OO
stuff? (As you can see I'm
Davor wrote:
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
Sure, but you will got problem with libraries. Some of them are in fact
frameworks and need some
Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, ...
Of course!
or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
You can always *write your own*
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
Davor wrote:
(note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-))
Don't worry we didn't get confused, it was quite
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
simple procedural stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that will be
On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python at
all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS batch
files for Windows. Both are nicesimple scripting languages free of
object oriented contamination.
not really, what I need that Python has and
Davor wrote:
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
simple procedural stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that
M.E.Farmer wrote:
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language - actually most python scripts that I have seen do
not even use OO
Davor wrote:
M.E.Farmer wrote:
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language - actually most python scripts that I have seen do
Davor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers...
If you think your project is valuable enough to eventually be Open
Source,
you can bet that
Davor wrote:
[...] what I need that Python has and bashdos don't is:
1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
2. good basic library (already there)
3. modules for structuring the application (objects unnecessary)
4. high-level data structures (dictionaries lists)
5. no strong
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:01:23 -0800, Davor wrote:
Thanks,
I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
simple procedural stuff
Davor wrote:
M.E.Farmer wrote:
Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language ...
If using a different language doesn't
Davor,
I was gonna let it go but I never was good at shutin up ;)
The greatest strength a manager can have is delegation. And with that
add the ability to best use the resources available .
It seems you are telling me that :
1) You do not understand most programming concepts
2) You are not
even if I follow the other answers above - language-wise and
management-advise-wise - just for the sake of completeness - I would
like to point you to Lua: http://www.lua.org/
1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
= yes, nearly pure ANSI-C should compile
2. good
M.E.Farmer,
first to clarify few things - I'm neither manager nor professionally
involved in code development - I'm just embarking on a small project
that I would like to attract some programmers to later on and make it a
nice open-source system. Based on my previous experience with few SMALL
thanks for the link
know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
discussion about adding OO to Lua.
I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support OO
if they want to attract a larger user base :-(...
davor
--
Davor, Before I learned Python, I too was put off by OO hype. And I
suppose I still would be if I still listened to it. But Python's class
statement is somewhere inbetween a C typedef and C++/Jave classes.
Stripped down pretty much to the essentials and only used when really
useful, it made
Davor wrote:
thanks for the link
know what's funny: in the Lua mailing list there is currently a
discussion about adding OO to Lua.
I guess most of these newer languages have no choice but to support OO
if they want to attract a larger user base :-(...
Tell me, have you ever defined a C
62 matches
Mail list logo
