UserLinux chooses Python as "interpretive language" of choice

[Terry Reedy]

"John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:vugbm8mgin8a35 at news.supernews.com...
>
> "Francis Avila" <francisgavila at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vufdk79q4g4i8a at corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Of course, the typical Ruby accusation against Python is that it (Ruby)
is
> > "purer OO".  I don't know what they mean by "purer".
>
> I suspect they are objecting to the use of built-in functions, and
> the use of functions in modules. Ruby
> uses methods for everything, and everything inherits from a base
> object that has a huge number of methods. Python is simply not
> going to go down that path. Personally, I don't have any opinion
> about which is better, both styles work.
>
> The other possibility is the pervasive use of the visitor pattern
> rather than Python's use of for statements for iterations. This,
> combined with the ease of creating anonymous functions, does
> seem to make a significant difference - at least it's what most
> Ruby afficianados talk about when they say what they like about
> the language.
>
> > If they mean the
> > fundamental types not being subclassable, that's an old wart that's
very
> > nearly gone.  Otherwise, I don't know what they could possibly mean,
> > considering absolutely everything in Python is an objects upon objects
> upon
> > objects.  A class is an object, the methods of an instantiated class
are
> > objects, the function a method wraps is an objects, the code of the
> function
> > is an object....  I think about the only thing that is not an object in
> > Python is a name, and I can't think how *that* would work.
>
> Interesting question, especially since it does seem to come up
> every few months.
>
> Technically, since names are simply keys in dictionaries, they
> *are* objects. I think the descriptor facility is a start on
> addressing that question, though.
>
> Rather than asking how it would work (the obvious answer
> is a different dictionary implementation for use in objects)
> it might be better to ask what you would use it for.
>
> John Roth
> >
> > --
> > Francis Avila
> >
>
>