python without OO

Thomas Bartkus tom at dtsam.com
Wed Jan 26 16:39:31 CET 2005


"Davor" <davorss at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ct6kvm$edg$1 at rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python
at
> > all.  It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS
batch
> > files for Windows.  Both are "nice&simple" scripting languages free of
> > object oriented contamination.
>
> not really, what I need that Python has and bash&dos don't is:
>
> 1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
> 2. good basic library (already there)
> 3. modules for structuring the application (objects unnecessary)
> 4. high-level data structures (dictionaries & lists)
> 5. no strong static type checking
> 6. very nice syntax
>
> so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, ...

The irony here is that the OO approach woven into the warp and woof of
Python is what make 1-6 possible.

> but when I
> started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
> stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now...

Again, there is nothing "additional" about the OO in Python.  It is the very
foundation upon which it is built.

> ... anyhow, I guess
> I'll have to constrain what can be included in the code through
> different policies rather than language limitations...
It would be reasonable to decide that Python is not what you are looking
for.
I'm not sure that castrating it in this manner would be quite so reasonable.

Thomas Bartkus





More information about the Python-list mailing list