Python evolution: Unease

Dave Brueck dave at pythonapocrypha.com
Tue Jan 4 21:41:55 CET 2005


Roman Suzi wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Dave Brueck wrote:
> 
> 
>>>It may be optional in the sense that the language will
>>>accept missing declarations but as soon as the feature
>>>is available it will become "mandatory" to use it
>>>(peer pressure, workplace practices).
> 
> 
> What about generic programming coming into fashion anytime soon?

Roman, I think I've read every single thread in the past year or three wherein 
you've brought up generic programming, and I think you'd do well to choose a new 
term for the idea you're trying to convey.

The term "generic programming" is too... er... generic. :) As you know, Python 
already includes a _lot_ of support for generic programming (a function that 
iterates over a sequence can easily process a list, or a string, or a tuple as 
input; a function that takes a file-like object can often work just as will with 
a true file object or a cStringIO object; etc.). So when you bring up "generic 
programming", it's too easy to dismiss the comment because (1) it's too vague 
and (2) Python already does a lot of it.

So, what is your term for the type of generic programming that Python doesn't 
yet support? Interfaces? Protocols? Adapters? Metatype hierarchies?

-Dave



More information about the Python-list mailing list