IsPython really O-O?

Edward Diener eldiener at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 12 06:20:57 CET 2001


"Object-oriented" is like the caterpillar in Alice saying, effectively, 
that when he says a word it means what he wants it to mean. No doubt 
your Smalltalk guru has his own definition of OOP so even if you ask him 
you will just be arguing against someone whose idea of OOP is Smalltalk, 
or some such similar nonsense. A more effective response would have been 
to ask him what he didn't like about Python. Maybe then you could have 
had an intelligent conversation with him. OOP is so personal that 
arguing about it is a huge waste of time.

kentsmith at dxsys.com wrote:

> A Smalltalk guru in our organization looked at Python last weekend (after I
> had made a big scene saying that it may be a solution to some of our
> cross-platform issues) and came away saying that it was no more
> object-oriented than Java.  I sputtered around a bit but could hardly make a
> decent argument, as I'm a mere designer.  We do very large-scale industrial
> work here, all O-O, with object databases (I thought the ZODB business
> looked great).  Is my friend right?  Is Python not "really" appropriate for
> true O-O applications, in the sense that Viz-Age Smalltalk and Eifel and so
> on are???
> 
> Kent Smith
> <embarrassed and kicking himself in Toronto>
> 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Python-list mailing list