Kirby writes -
Agreed. It's one thing to be a useful paradigm, another thing to claim to be THE paradigm. No need to get too doctrinaire.
In fairness to Python, perhaps you should at least give some play to its multi-paradigm approach. Just so people don't confuse it with being religiously OO, as for example, Ruby or Smalltalk seem to be. Talking through my hat, BTW, if it isn't clear - that is, considering the depth of my undersanding of these issues and my experience with Smalltalk and Ruby. The fact is that since Python is my major language, the distinction between programming paradigms is not a very useful paradigm with which to concern onceself. The best way to get from Point A to Point B, via Python's facilities, is the more useful question. What paradigm borders I cross in the process is not something with which I concern myself (or truly understand). If I had more trouble finding my way from A to B - in a way that someone following after me would have difficulty following - I would then concern myself more with why that might be. And think more, perhaps, about programming paradigms. At the level at which I am working, at least, I don't see the issue arising. My prejudice toward using OOP concepts was probably just a function of the fact that it was a natural fit for much of what I was doing and how I was thinking about what I was doing. Parathentically, the difficulty with OOP is spoken about, in things I have stumbled across, as a Circle and Ellipse problem (I think I have this right). Being a form of the Chicken and Egg problem. Interestingly, to me, thinking in terms of Projective Geoemetry, the issue evaporates. Since they the Circle and Ellipse are projectively equivalent. And one would not expect to be able to derive one from the other. They are the same thing, different spelling. Art