Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #90326 > unrolled thread

Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 18:46 -0700
    Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 12:00 +1000
      Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 19:11 -0700
        Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 12:18 +1000
          OFFTOPIC, WAS Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 19:27 -0700
            Re: OFFTOPIC, WAS Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-05-11 12:41 +1000
    Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-11 16:15 +1000
      Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-11 07:31 +0100

#90326 — Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy

> > 3.) true OOP
> > Now before you go and get all "huffy" over this statement, hear me
> > out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
> > some warts! "len(this)" instead of "obj.length" max(that) instead of
> > [1,2,3,4,5].max().
> 
> As the Zen says: '[P]racticality beats purity'. Personally, I'm not
> sure how a handful of convenient built-in functions make a language in
> which _everything is an object_ somehow "false" OO.
> 
> If you're really that concerned with writing "true" OO (for some
> wildly variable value of "true"), there's nothing stopping you from
> doing so now:
> 
>     obj.__len__()

The issue is that Python currently blurs a very powerful conceptual boundary in CS -- between the abstract space where objects and variables are held and the concrete underlying machine. 

By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one primary component of OOP:  encapsulation.

Mark

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90328

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 3.) true OOP
>> > Now before you go and get all "huffy" over this statement, hear me
>> > out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
>> > some warts! "len(this)" instead of "obj.length" max(that) instead of
>> > [1,2,3,4,5].max().
>>
>> As the Zen says: '[P]racticality beats purity'. Personally, I'm not
>> sure how a handful of convenient built-in functions make a language in
>> which _everything is an object_ somehow "false" OO.
>>
>> If you're really that concerned with writing "true" OO (for some
>> wildly variable value of "true"), there's nothing stopping you from
>> doing so now:
>>
>>     obj.__len__()
>
> The issue is that Python currently blurs a very powerful conceptual boundary in CS -- between the abstract space where objects and variables are held and the concrete underlying machine.
>
> By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one primary component of OOP:  encapsulation.
>

Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
archive.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90330

> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
> archive.

I'm sorry.  I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little too long, and didn't see that this was a post from 6 years ago.

Feel free to disregard.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90333

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
>> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
>> archive.
>
> I'm sorry.  I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little too long, and didn't see that this was a post from 6 years ago.
>
> Feel free to disregard.
>

That actually has nothing to do with it. You're still quoting without citation.

This is why Google Groups has such a bad reputation. I think it's time
for me to *plonk* you.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90335 — OFFTOPIC, WAS Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
> >> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
> >> archive.
> >
> > I'm sorry.  I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little too long, and didn't see that this was a post from 6 years ago.
> >
> > Feel free to disregard.
> 
> That actually has nothing to do with it. You're still quoting without citation.

Well, I replied right at the point of my correspondent (Alex23).  If googlegroups isn't tracking that fact, it shouldn't put a reply button at every single message, but only at the end of the thread.

> This is why Google Groups has such a bad reputation. I think it's time
> for me to *plonk* you.

I see.  Someone should inform google not to put a reply after every post, but only at the end of a thread so users don't assume that it's tracking thread hierarchies.  So you're point is apropos, if that's the case.

In which case, my reply was to Alex23 who was replying to the OP's first post who goes by the name "r".

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90337 — Re: OFFTOPIC, WAS Re: Confessions of a Python fanboy

zipher <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > That actually has nothing to do with it. You're still quoting
> > without citation.
>
> Well, I replied right at the point of my correspondent (Alex23).

That's not the issue :-)

The omission Chris is referring to is: in earlier messages, you were
stripping the “attribution line” from directly above the quoted
material. That makes it anonymous, and it becomes difficult to track who
said what.

The attribution line looks like:

    “On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:”

without the quote marks.

You need to preserve the attribution lines – as you did on the message
just now, that I'm replying to – in order to show who wrote what quoted
material.

Only remove attribution lines if you're *also* removing all of the
attributed material. Keep attribution lines for the material you're
quoting.

-- 
 \        “We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't |
  `\                believe in tolerance and free speech.” —David Brin |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90349

On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:

> By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
> only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
> primary component of OOP:  encapsulation.


Gosh, one would almost think that Python's concept of OOP wasn't pure enough 
for you.

You should talk to that other guy who says that Python is too pure, his name 
is Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen. I'm sure you two would have a lot to talk about.



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#90351

On 11/05/2015 07:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:
>
>> By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
>> only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
>> primary component of OOP:  encapsulation.
>
> Gosh, one would almost think that Python's concept of OOP wasn't pure enough
> for you.
>
> You should talk to that other guy who says that Python is too pure, his name
> is Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen. I'm sure you two would have a lot to talk about.
>

Ah, the penny has finally dropped.  I recall years ago somebody pointing 
out his website.  It had clearly been put together after the narcotics 
from several bulk carriers had been consumed.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web