Re: Not fully OO ?

[Craig Allen]

It is clear to me that Python is a multiparadigmed object oriented
language. It is clearly possible to write procedural code... that is,
Python does not force object oriented syntax or concepts on you and
insist you define everything in such a structure. Is the OO it allows
full OO, I think so, and the only way to argue otherwise I think is to
point out that the "main" function is just the module level itself,
and is not part of an object... which is just the sort of pedantic
things purists like to hang their hat on.

personally I am very much the sort that believe in "trust the
programmer" and likes languages that provide a freedom to use various
complementary paradigms, in the style of C++. Compared to that, it's
clear that Python is quite object oriented even in the sense of
drawing you to build things in object oriented ways... just not
strictly requiring it. Which is good, it allows some interesting
patterns which play quite well with object oriented desirgn (i.e.
module as singleton)... in fact, that plays so well as a singleton,
some would say the module is just an object anyway, and indeed, the
intepreter tends to agree.

So python may turn out to be pure OO, where Objects SIMULATE
procedural programming paradigms and allow that paradigm as a result,
on top of OO.

cheers.

[Tim Rowe]

Re: Not fully OO ?

2008/9/23 Craig Allen <callen314@gmai l.com>:

So python may turn out to be pure OO

I think that's the sort of thing the pedants would hang that hats on,
too. Python isn't *pure* OO, in that it lets the programmers do non-OO
if they want to, but it is *fully* OO in that it includes everything
required to do OO. But maybe the original blogger meant by "fully OO"
what I mean by "Pure OO"?

The question I usually ask is "Does this language help me get the job
done?" Python often does. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

--
Tim Rowe

[Craig Allen]

Re: Not fully OO ?

if they want to, but it is *fully* OO in that it includes everything

required to do OO. But maybe the original blogger meant by "fully OO"
what I mean by "Pure OO"?

it seems to me this is what was meant... pure OO, AND forced to use
it.

My personal feeling is that python is multiparadigmed and I'm more
than fine with that.

BUT, I am going to hold onto what I've noticed which is that Python
seems to use OO deeply, well into the interpreter, and that the
procedural styles available at the Python source level pretty much are
built on top of this OO model, given you accept a module as an object,
which it seems to be within the source code... but in the end, it's
just words and the most important thing is that python is a tool you
can use to make a computer do what you want, and whatever you call it
may just be a distraction. cheers.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Re: Not fully OO ?

In message
<24ac4a18-049f-4ae0-892a-d3fc84995c9d@a1 8g2000pra.googl egroups.com>, Craig
Allen wrote:

It is clearly possible to write procedural code... that is,
Python does not force object oriented syntax or concepts on you ...

Object orientation IS procedural.

[James Mills]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@geek-central.gen.new _zealandwrote:

Object orientation IS procedural.

Correction: OOP is Imperative.

--JamesMills

--
--
-- "Problems are solved by method"

[Patrick Mullen]

Re: Not fully OO ?

Depending on the scale of the website I am making, how much I care
about editing it in the future, and how much I just want to get
something up, I will occasionally use php. And I am a self confessed
php hater :) But it's generally the fastest way I know to get
something up. So even terrible languages can have their uses!

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Not fully OO ?

Patrick Mullen a écrit :

Depending on the scale of the website I am making, how much I care
about editing it in the future, and how much I just want to get
something up, I will occasionally use php. And I am a self confessed
php hater :) But it's generally the fastest way I know to get
something up. So even terrible languages can have their uses!

Sorry but I fail to see how it relates to the current thread ???

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:00:59 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

Patrick Mullen a écrit :

>Depending on the scale of the website I am making, how much I care
>about editing it in the future, and how much I just want to get
>something up, I will occasionally use php. And I am a self confessed
>php hater :) But it's generally the fastest way I know to get
>something up. So even terrible languages can have their uses!

>
Sorry but I fail to see how it relates to the current thread ???

I think Patrick is responding to a comment from Tino Wildenhain:

[quote]
Well then it still depends on the perception of "job done". For example
PHP programmers would bet their soul that their language of choice is
exactly the right one to "get the job done."
[end quote]

Patrick, you will cause much less confusion if you quote relevant parts
of the text you are replying too.


--
Steven

[Tim Rowe]

Re: Not fully OO ?

2008/9/26 Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhai n.de>:

>The question I usually ask is "Does this language help me get the job
>done?" Python often does. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

>
Well then it still depends on the perception of "job done". For example
PHP programmers would bet their soul that their language of choice is
exactly the right one to "get the job done." :-)
You and me would indeed see a different picture on the level of doneness
of such jobs ;-)

Well, I did say "Often". Before now I've struggled for ages to write a
Python program to do a job, then when I've tried C# all the problems
have fallen away and the job was done in an hour or so. But other
times it has been the other way around; I've done stuff in Python that
I wouldn't know where to begin with in other languages. One of my
constant refrains is that *no* tool is ideal for *all* jobs!

--
Tim Rowe

[Aaron \Castironpi\ Brady]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Sep 26, 11:48 am, "Tim Rowe" <digi...@gmail. comwrote:

2008/9/26 Tino Wildenhain <t...@wildenhai n.de>:
>

The question I usually ask is "Does this language help me get the job
done?" Python often does. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

>

Well then it still depends on the perception of "job done". For example
PHP programmers would bet their soul that their language of choice is
exactly the right one to "get the job done." :-)
You and me would indeed see a different picture on the level of doneness
of such jobs ;-)

>
Well, I did say "Often". Before now I've struggled for ages to write a
Python program to do a job, then when I've tried C# all the problems
have fallen away and the job was done in an hour or so. But other
times it has been the other way around; I've done stuff in Python that
I wouldn't know where to begin with in other languages. One of my
constant refrains is that *no* tool is ideal for *all* jobs!
>
--
Tim Rowe

I thought procedural and imperative were the same.

"Sorry, but you forgot to phrase your expression in the form of a
command."
I'll take 'modules' for $500, Alex.

[Aaron \Castironpi\ Brady]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Sep 26, 11:48 am, "Tim Rowe" <digi...@gmail. comwrote:

2008/9/26 Tino Wildenhain <t...@wildenhai n.de>:
>

The question I usually ask is "Does this language help me get the job
done?" Python often does. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

>

Well then it still depends on the perception of "job done". For example
PHP programmers would bet their soul that their language of choice is
exactly the right one to "get the job done." :-)
You and me would indeed see a different picture on the level of doneness
of such jobs ;-)

>
Well, I did say "Often". Before now I've struggled for ages to write a
Python program to do a job, then when I've tried C# all the problems

What problems?

have fallen away and the job

What job?

was done in an hour or so. But other
times it has been the other way around; I've done stuff in Python that
I wouldn't know where to begin with in other languages. One of my
constant refrains is that *no* tool is ideal for *all* jobs!
>
--
Tim Rowe

If you have wxFormBuilder and the win32 library, it's pretty fast.

Python's philosophy is to make common things easy and everything
possible.

[Tim Rowe]

Re: Not fully OO ?

2008/9/26 Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelque chose@free.quel quepart.fr>:

Not to start a troll, but from what I've seen of C# so far I do find this a
bit surprising and really suspect more of a library issue than a language
one. Care to tell more about the problem and solution ?
>
(NB : I wouldn't even asked if you had mentionned say Erlang or Prolog or
OCaml - well, some mostly different language - instead of C#)

IIRC it was library issues -- for one thing I still find it a lot
harder to manage an MS Windows GUI under Python than I do under .NET
(I've never succeeded in getting Iron Python to run properly). In one
sense you could argue that that's not a language issue, and you'd be
right: there's nothing in the syntax or semantics of either language
that makes it so. But in another sense I'd say it is a language issue
(and of course I think I'm right!) because Python aims to be platform
independent, and whilst that means gains in portability it means that
in return it loses the ease-of-programming of a tightly integrated
platform.

--
Tim Rowe

[Tim Rowe]

Re: Not fully OO ?

2008/9/26 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castironpi@gma il.com>:

If you have wxFormBuilder and the win32 library, it's pretty fast.

Speed has never been an issue for me with Python. For my masters
degree I did a project that involved a lot of number crunching, and in
my proposal I wrote that I'd use Python for most of the code and C for
any parts that were unacceptably slow. In practice, not only did I
never need to replace any parts with C, I never even needed to use
numpy; it was quite fast enough as it was.

Python's philosophy is to make common things easy and everything
possible.

But what's common for one person may be uncommon for another. And
sometimes "possible" isn't enough, or we'd all be using INTERCAL!

Another, quite different example to the one I was referring to earlier
is the fact that I often work with safety critical systems. I don't
think formal proof of program behaviour would be at all
straightforward in Python (or C# for that matter, and although Spec#
gets closer, it really needs a language like Spark Ada).

--
Tim Rowe

[Aaron \Castironpi\ Brady]

Re: Not fully OO ?

On Sep 26, 6:40 pm, "Tim Rowe" <digi...@gmail. comwrote:

2008/9/26 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castiro...@gma il.com>:
>

If you have wxFormBuilder and the win32 library, it's pretty fast.

>
Speed has never been an issue for me with Python. For my masters
degree I did a project that involved a lot of number crunching, and in
my proposal I wrote that I'd use Python for most of the code and C for
any parts that were unacceptably slow. In practice, not only did I
never need to replace any parts with C, I never even needed to use
numpy; it was quite fast enough as it was.
>

Python's philosophy is to make common things easy and everything
possible.

>
But what's common for one person may be uncommon for another. And
sometimes "possible" isn't enough, or we'd all be using INTERCAL!
>
Another, quite different example to the one I was referring to earlier
is the fact that I often work with safety critical systems. I don't
think formal proof of program behaviour would be at all
straightforward in Python (or C# for that matter, and although Spec#
gets closer, it really needs a language like Spark Ada).
>
--
Tim Rowe

No. I understand that formal proof systems, as well as automated
theorem provers, have been difficult to develop. When I took ML, the
homeworks were to prove the correctness of an interpretation of a
program, and the unique existence of a meaning by induction.

But I, and I imagine I'm not the only one, would love to know the
example that C# developed faster than Python. I suppose the fact that
the line of wx specification that has two identifiers where C# has one
is more of a drain on programmer resources than may commonly be
recognized--- not the same as the cost of one extra word in a paper or
in an editorial. Similarly, maybe the program that has one extra
identifier in a line takes a lot more time to develop. Perhaps it's
the "7 +/- 1" trend in attention span that makes the difference large
in that case. 8 identifiers would in that theory be a big deal, so
the example in C# could make the case for it.

[Tim Rowe]

Re: Not fully OO ?

2008/9/27 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castironpi@gma il.com>:

But I, and I imagine I'm not the only one, would love to know the
example that C# developed faster than Python. I suppose the fact that
the line of wx specification that has two identifiers where C# has one
is more of a drain on programmer resources than may commonly be
recognized--- not the same as the cost of one extra word in a paper or
in an editorial. Similarly, maybe the program that has one extra
identifier in a line takes a lot more time to develop.

But I didn't use wx -- that's rather the point. Long before the days
of Python, I kept wanting to use Modula2 but kept getting driven back
to C because in Modula2 I kept having to write stuff that was already
in C libraries. Modula2 was a far better language, but C usually was
far more productive because of what went around it. C#'s tight
integration with .net and VS mean that it's not a question of one
identifier instead of two, it's *zero* identifiers instead of two
because the tool does it all for me. Does that mean that C# is a
better language than Python? No, of course not. Does it mean that what
I was doing was not possible in Python? No, of course not. Does it
mean that C# was more productive than Python for me doing that
particular job? Yes it does. (FWIW, I also found the .net XML handling
easier to cope with on that same job).

One day Iron Python plus the VS integration might wean me off C# but
last time I looked it wasn't close. Maybe I should take another look
and see how it's coming on.

--
Tim Rowe