Re: Functions vs OOP

From	Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
Subject	Re: Functions vs OOP
Date	2011-09-03 15:15 -0400
References	<j3tjov$c30$1@dont-email.me> <4e625508$0$29973$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.746.1315077390.27778.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/3/2011 12:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> William Gill wrote:
>
>> During some recent research, and re-familiarization with Python, I came
>> across documentation

Ours, or someone else's?

>> that suggests that programming using functions, and
>> programming using objects were somehow opposing techniques.
>>
>> It seems to me that they are complimentary.  It makes sense to create
>> objects and have some functions that take those objects as arguments.
>
> Python is a mixed paradigm language, with object, functional and imperative
> paradigms.
>
>> Are they suggesting that any function that takes an object as an
>> argument should always be a method of that object?

Or of the class of the object.

> Yes.
> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html

Since in Python, everything is an object, that would mean that every 
function has to be a method, which would mean creating classes just to 
have a class to attach functions to. How awful. (Oh, right, I believe I 
just described Java.)

>> Am I missing something, or am I taking things too literally?
>
> No, it is the OO purists who are missing something.

Yes, Python.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Thread

Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 12:15 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-04 02:25 +1000
    Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-03 15:15 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:34 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-09-04 07:39 +1000
          Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:58 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-03 21:51 -0400
          Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 22:18 -0400
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 14:58 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-09-03 17:29 +0100
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:09 -0400
  Re: Functions vs OOP Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 12:50 -0600
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-03 17:13 -0400
    Re: Functions vs OOP tinnews@isbd.co.uk - 2011-09-04 09:13 +0100
      Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-04 21:18 +1000
      Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-04 14:32 -0400
        Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-04 15:43 -0400
          Re: Functions vs OOP Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-05 09:41 +1000
            Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-04 20:46 -0400
            Re: Functions vs OOP Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 10:59 +1000
  Re: Functions vs OOP rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 06:13 -0700
    Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <noreply@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 13:45 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel@sequans.com> - 2011-09-05 21:04 +0200
        Re: Functions vs OOP William Gill <nospam@domain.invalid> - 2011-09-05 20:30 -0400
      Re: Functions vs OOP Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-09-05 18:55 -0400

csiph-web