Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.04; 'static': 0.04; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'ugly': 0.07; 'latter': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'meaningful': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'subset': 0.09; 'thread': 0.14; 'belongs': 0.16; 'distinct': 0.16; 'reasonably': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'red,': 0.16; 'subject:Java': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'starts': 0.20; 'example': 0.22; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.23; 'sort': 0.25; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'programming.': 0.30; 'said,': 0.30; 'along': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'lines': 0.31; 'probably': 0.32; 'languages': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; 'open': 0.33; 'running': 0.33; 'implemented': 0.33; 'skip:d 20': 0.34; 'subject: (': 0.35; 'objects': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'too': 0.37; 'project': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'that,': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'support,': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'most': 0.60; 'range': 0.61; 'more': 0.64; 'day': 0.76; 'beats': 0.84; 'flame': 0.84; 'proves': 0.84; 'war,': 0.84; 'procedural': 0.91; 'hair': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:41:57 +0100 References: <0a9761bd-4f1c-48a9-a3c5-9424f2e99f2e@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-78-147-19-253.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 In-Reply-To: <0a9761bd-4f1c-48a9-a3c5-9424f2e99f2e@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1382128942 news.xs4all.nl 15923 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:60409 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:57078 On 18/10/2013 21:32, Peter Cacioppi wrote: >> I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong" >> "weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems > > I can live with that, actually. > > The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs. dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. object based vs. true OO. > > That probably starts another flame war, but this thread is already running around with its hair on fire. > > I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of object-oriented programming. The former can be implemented elegantly in a wide range of languages without much in the way of specific language support, the latter needs to designed into the language to allow a modicum of polymorhpic readability. > > It's an important distinction, because a project that is constrained to C should (IMHO) target an object-based design pattern but not an object-oriented one. That said, I'm open to disputation-by-example on this point, provided the example is reasonably small and pretty. (If the only polymorphic C code is ugly and non-small, it sort of proves my point). > > As far as I'm concerned all of the above belongs on comp.theoretical.claptrap, give me practicality beats purity any day of the week :) -- Roses are red, Violets are blue, Most poems rhyme, But this one doesn't. Mark Lawrence