Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #90408
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: anomaly |
| Date | 2015-05-11 17:12 +0100 |
| References | (6 earlier) <55504803$0$13004$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <a93604dd-74d6-42a8-b197-406e8fa15467@googlegroups.com> <mailman.367.1431355924.12865.python-list@python.org> <b05b09d6-9585-41d7-b573-b3c331681d89@googlegroups.com> <CANc-5UyjDdNArUxE73fG4_Sx0o4ah53EVKGZZAGfWEzpoxUDFw@mail.gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.375.1431360753.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 11/05/2015 16:48, Skip Montanaro wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:11 AM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote: >> I also bought the idea of everything as an object, it has a unbeatable purity to it. But we won't ever get to the point were OOP is like the purity of math because the greatest utility of OOP is working with real-world data. And that real-world puts bounds on the otherwise abstract purity in which a language is theoretically capable. > > Did someone here say it would? Sure, OOP isn't as pure as math, but > most object-oriented languages aren't pure OO languages, either. > (Maybe Smalltalk?) In Python, when you want to manipulate bazillions > of numbers, you use numpy, pandas, etc. In C++, you code in the C > subset it (still) contains when you don't want objects. > > The practicality side of things suggests that even though > everything-is-an-object isn't perfect, it may be good enough. > People/projects/companies generally can't afford to follow every > change that blows through their environment. That's why (for example), > COBOL lasted so long. In fact, I suspect you could still make a good > living writing COBOL, if you really wanted to. (Searching indeed.com > for "COBOL" in Chicago, IL gave me 81 hits.) > > Python was never meant to be "pure". It has, by Guido's own admission, > borrowed ideas from many other languages. Very little in Python is > truly new, certainly not its object model. At the user level > everything appears to be an object, but not everything is under the > covers (e.g., numeric elements of array objects). > > Skip > Are you aware that you're attempting to communicate with a known troll who thankfully has been absent for some years? -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: anomaly Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-11 01:19 +0100
Re: anomaly zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 17:57 -0700
Re: anomaly Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-11 16:11 +1000
Re: anomaly zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 07:23 -0700
Re: anomaly Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:45 -0500
Re: anomaly zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 08:11 -0700
Re: anomaly Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 10:48 -0500
Re: anomaly zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:43 -0700
Re: anomaly Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: anomaly Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-11 17:12 +0100
Re: anomaly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-11 15:34 +0000
Re: anomaly zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 08:39 -0700
Re: anomaly alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 15:02 +1000
Re: anomaly Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-12 12:56 +0100
Re: anomaly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-05-12 15:36 +0000
Re: anomaly Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-05-11 15:36 -0700
Re: anomaly Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-12 01:55 +1000
Re: anomaly lorenzo.gatti@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 00:16 -0700
csiph-web