Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #43414
| References | <CAMjeLr_+9CjrRWL6=wnY21iSZFEqcq6Nsp=6bHX7okAhDNYYKw@mail.gmail.com> <516763EE.1010300@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-04-11 19:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOPv2 -- Was: [Python-ideas] Reviving PEP 3140 - "str(container) should call str(item), not repr(item)" |
| From | Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.500.1365732339.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
> But there is no single "OOP" paradigm. Java vs Python vs Ruby vs > Javascript, they're all subtly different. "Subtly" is the keyword there. Predominately, they are the same -- they try to make a pure OOP object model in an imagined abstract space. >> Wikipedia suggests that there are four main types of programming >> languages. OOP language and imperative languages are the first two. >> I'm suggesting a synthesis and unification of both those into single >> language. To do that will require a data/object model that makes a >> single taxonomy of the data/machine architecture with the abstraction >> architecture -- two ends of the spectrum. I call it a unified data >> model. > > This sounds a lot like Java, which has primitive values and objects. Are > you familiar with it? I'm not sure what you're suggesting is so > revolutionary. Lol, apparently you're not all that familiar with Python history, because Python had it also, it called them types and objects (see the docs on v2.2). If you read my thread I just sent out, you'll get what I'm after a bit more. But basically, is that python ignored its Zen: that practicality beats purity. Mark
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: OOPv2 -- Was: [Python-ideas] Reviving PEP 3140 - "str(container) should call str(item), not repr(item)" Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-11 19:05 -0700
csiph-web