IsPython really O-O?
jason at jvoegele.com
Mon Nov 12 20:15:19 CET 2001
<kentsmith at dxsys.com> wrote in message news:<AbkH7.41130$bf1.4968343 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> 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???
Unfortunately, everybody has their own opinion on what "is OO", and
what is "pure OO". Personally, I don't consider Python to be a pure
OO language. I consider it a hybrid language with support for OO, but
that doesn't mean it's not useful. I've formulated my own opinion
about what makes a language "Pure OO", which you can read here:
Please note that this is not complete, and that it is not intended to
say language x is better than language y. I'd appreciate feedback if
I've misrepresented anything, though.
Also note that just because a language is not "pure OO", does not mean
that you cannot create OO applications with it. Java is not pure OO,
but supports OO well enough to create OO
More information about the Python-list