Could Python supplant Java?

laotseu bdesth at nospam.free.fr
Thu Aug 22 18:45:10 CEST 2002


James J. Besemer wrote:
>>Rob Andrews <rob[nospam]@uselesspython.com> wrote in message news:<Xns92705C2BCBA0Erobuselesspythoncom at 24.28.95.158>...
>>[snipped...]
>>
>>>*dynamic v. static* and *strong v. weak* are two distinct categories,
>>>although the ability to point to a concise explanation is beyond me
>>>presently.
>>
> 
> The way I was taught the distinction was EARLY vs. LATE BINDING.
> 
[snip]
> 
> Some more zealous sources claim that "polymorphism" and other OOP techniques are impossible with early binding and thus
> require late binding to make it possible.  This is bullshit.
> 

Of course, or Java and C++ couldn't make it.

> However, saying both systems are "strong" suggests a near-equivlance when in fact the semantics and implications for
> developers are rather different.
> 
> There are significant trade-offs to either approach.

Idem.

>  People who think 'their' language is 'perfect' tend to believe the
> approach used by their favorite language is 'best'.
> 
> Thus, true Pythonistas will argue that late binding (by any other name) is superior.


I may not be true one !-)

I was justing disagreeing when FISH argues that
- late binding (to use your terminology) disqualifies a language for 
large projects - in fact for anything else than scripting.

- early binding is always safer (it's very easy to demonstrate that it 
may be false, with a C example using void * and casting).

Laotseu


> --jb
> 
> --
> James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
> http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
> mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
> 
> 
> 





More information about the Python-list mailing list