Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Correct type for a simple "bag of attributes" namespace object
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:52:36 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <87egwxlge3.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net>
References: <7ef67ccc-3fc3-47dd-b858-09ef3b57a497@googlegroups.com> <87r40zmkhr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <53dd0717$0$29973$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.12548.1407009552.18130.python-list@python.org> <70e5f2f1-661f-40f2-bb7a-76e569c4d092@googlegroups.com> <CALwzidmZMReJL-XqOuxj5Q7mQhVA29itGZdmGCT3-6B7eyO_Sg@mail.gmail.com> <lrk7li$6nb$1@ger.gmane.org> <1407057464.64980.YahooMailNeo@web163806.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <lrkvs1$6hk$1@ger.gmane.org> <1407063072.46317.YahooMailNeo@web163803.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <mailman.12578.1407065042.18130.python-list@python.org> <87wqaplj8h.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <roy-7C33D4.11094703082014@news.panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ff5cf27ef3d5b31f034d3b72bdc27a41"; logging-data="25290"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/K634/Q1RjsIgFI2W88zKd"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bue/1qmPa+dYlNAabR2Z73ci+X8= sha1:INEynzjuKFwnQHqE7tFW/Hszn6Q=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:75608

Roy Smith <roy@panix.com>:

>  Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>
>> I've reached a point where I think classes are a superfluous OO
>> concept. You only need objects.
>
> comp.lang.javascript is over that way -->

Thanks for the insight. I'm currently more absorbed by comp.lang.scheme,
though.

Now, Python is ducktyped. It is (rightly) considered bad taste to
consult the datatype (class) of an object. Compare these two
definitions:

   class Point:
       def __init__(self, x, y):
           self.x = x
           self.y = y

       def x(self):
           return self.x

       def y(self):
           return self.y

and:

   class Object: pass

   def Point(x, y):
       self = Object()
       self.__dict__ = dict(x=lambda: x, y=lambda: y)
       return self

For all practical purposes, the two definitions are identical even
though the latter doesn't specify any class. Inheritance needs to be
addressed, but that can be taken care of without classes as well.

Obviously, Python's syntax makes it convenient to deal with classes, and
there's no practical downside to it. However, conceptually, classes are
unnecessary baggage and at odds with ducktyping.


Marko