Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

References	(2 earlier) <CAMjeLr8+pr12+0mN0SOrtg9ZTkNq=PiqxWyqB8CxpJ0BT=sxJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMjeLr9OSD4B-2NHNra=Acyj1h0g8VLOVwjFFm5c35TX+Vu5SA@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidn442aiADJwYSzQfAZsHf4RK=sdgt1C7dJHxsHeqiZzPA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.1505.1368136296.3114.python-list@python.org> <b864cbc6-746a-4bb0-a5d0-548a84186ec1@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Date	2013-05-10 13:07 +1000
Subject	Re: Message passing syntax for objects \| OOPv2
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1517.1368155279.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Languages can reach for an optimal design (within a
>> constant margin of leeway).   Language "expressivity" can be measured.
>
> I'm sure that's great. I, however, have a major project going live in
> a few weeks and would rather just get something done.

Hmm, not really a fair argument there. A well-designed language lets
you "just get something done" far more efficiently than a
poorly-designed one. Being confident that similar objects behave
correspondingly when invoked the same way lets you write your code
without fiddling with minutiae, for instance. ("Hmm, I'll just switch
that from being a tuple to being a list, so I can modify this one
element." - code that indexes or iterates won't be affected.)

Now, whether or not it's worth _debating_ the expressiveness of a
language... well, that's another point entirely. But for your major
project, I think you'll do better working in Python than in machine
code.

ChrisA

Thread

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 14:51 -0700
  Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 16:58 -0700
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 20:08 -0700
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-10 13:07 +1000
      Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-05-11 15:23 -0700
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-10 14:33 +1000
      Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-10 00:55 -0400
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-10 17:37 +1000
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2013-05-10 07:49 -0400
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-10 08:58 -0400
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-11 15:34 -0400
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-11 15:32 -0400
      Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-05-12 12:50 +1200
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-12 11:10 +1000
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-12 08:41 +1000
      Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-05-12 13:02 +1200
        Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-12 11:19 +1000
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-12 12:53 -0400

csiph-web