Re: Not fully OO ?

[Kay Schluehr]

On 20 Sep., 11:23, candide <cand...@free.i nvalidwrote:

Excerpt quoted fromhttp://www.astro.ufl.e du/~warner/prog/python.html:
>
"About Python: Python is a high level scripting language with object
oriented features.
(...)
Python supports OOP and classes to an extent, but is not a full OOP
language."
>
Thanks for any comment.

This is somewhat true. But what is OO, really?

Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: Not fully OO ?

Kay Schluehr wrote:

Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.

you're satirising the quoted author's cargo-cultish view of object
orientation, right?

</F>

[Kay Schluehr]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On 20 Sep., 12:14, Fredrik Lundh <fred...@python ware.comwrote:

Kay Schluehr wrote:

Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.

>
you're satirising the quoted author's cargo-cultish view of object
orientation, right?
>
</F>

I wonder if the OO fetish hasn't already lost much of its magic
powers. What are the most powerful fetishes these days? A year ago I
would have suspected "purely functional" but I'm not sure it has
really caught on.

[Eduardo O. Padoan]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr@g mx.netwrote:

On 20 Sep., 12:14, Fredrik Lundh <fred...@python ware.comwrote:

>Kay Schluehr wrote:

Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.

>>
>you're satirising the quoted author's cargo-cultish view of object
>orientation, right?
>>
></F>

>
I wonder if the OO fetish hasn't already lost much of its magic
powers. What are the most powerful fetishes these days? A year ago I
would have suspected "purely functional" but I'm not sure it has
really caught on.

I think the current fetish is paralelism and erlang's share-nothing
concurrency model. Or something like it.

--

http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

>

--
Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan

http://djangopeople.net/edcrypt/

http://stopforwarding.us/etiq.html

[Aaron \Castironpi\ Brady]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Sep 20, 5:14 am, Fredrik Lundh <fred...@python ware.comwrote:

Kay Schluehr wrote:

Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.

>
you're satirising the quoted author's cargo-cultish view of object
orientation, right?
>
</F>

If you define OO as implementation inheritance, then Java is not. It
inherits interface only. Another possibility is, has a virtual
function table. The fact that Python indexes by name doesn't
disqualify it from that definition. I don't know if Java meets it.

I don't think raw C structures would be included, and you can define
function pointers in them.

Wikipedia puts it decently: "mainly for OO programming, but with some
procedural elements."

<ducks>

[Paul Boddie]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On 20 Sep, 19:42, "Aaron \"Castironpi \" Brady" <castiro...@gma il.com>
wrote:

>
Wikipedia puts it decently: "mainly for OO programming, but with some
procedural elements."
>
<ducks>

When it comes to Python and object-oriented programming, you can't
leave out the ducks. ;-)

Paul

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Re: Not fully OO ?

In message
<ee99e813-97e0-404c-a512-748d0d148f8c@b1 g2000hsg.google groups.com>,
Aaron "Castironpi " Brady wrote:

Wikipedia puts it decently: "mainly for OO programming, but with some
procedural elements."

"Procedural " is the opposite of "functional ", not "object-oriented".

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Not fully OO ?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :

In message
<ee99e813-97e0-404c-a512-748d0d148f8c@b1 g2000hsg.google groups.com>,
Aaron "Castironpi " Brady wrote:
>

>Wikipedia puts it decently: "mainly for OO programming, but with some
>procedural elements."

>
"Procedural " is the opposite of "functional ", not "object-oriented".

AFAIK, the "opposite" if functional is imperative, not procedural. But
let's not waste too much time on terminology arguments...

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:58:39 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>"Procedural " is the opposite of "functional ", not "object-oriented".

>
AFAIK, the "opposite" if functional is imperative, not procedural. But
let's not waste too much time on terminology arguments...

We're not wasting time on terminology arguments, we're wasting time on
definitional debates.




--
Steven