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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #43414 > unrolled thread

Re: OOPv2 -- Was: [Python-ideas] Reviving PEP 3140 - "str(container) should call str(item), not repr(item)"

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: 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

#43414 — Re: OOPv2 -- Was: [Python-ideas] Reviving PEP 3140 - "str(container) should call str(item), not repr(item)"

> 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

[toc] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web