Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?
bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Fri Jul 13 23:06:41 CEST 2007
Chris Carlen a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> Chris Carlen a écrit :
>>> Must possibly learn a completely new way of thinking (OOP)
>> Not necessarly. While Python is OO all the way down - meaning that
>> everything you'll work with will be an object (functions included) -,
>> it doesn't *force* you into OO (IOW : you don't have to define classes
>> to write a Python program). You can as well use a procedural - or even
>> somewhat functional - approach, and most Python programs I've seen so
>> far are usually a mix of the three.
>>> not just a new language syntax.
>> You forgot one of the most important part of a language : idioms. And
>> it's definitively *not* idiomatic in Python to use classes when a
>> simpler solution (using plain functions and modules) is enough.
> I see. That's very promising. I guess some articles I read painted a
> picture of religiousity among OOP programmers.
That's alas a common disease - I'd say the best way to be definitively
disgusted from OO is to read comp.lang.object :(
> But that is not the
> impression I am getting at all on the street.
Heck. As you said, the important is to get things done. And I guess
that's why we all (here) love Python. Last time I had to work on a
Pascal program (actually Delphi's ObjectPascal, but the whole thing was
almost caricaturally procedural), I found myself having to write tens of
lines of code for thing that would have been no-brainer one-liners in
Python, and define new types (records - Pascal's structs) where Python's
builtin dict type would have do the trick. It's not a matter of
procedural vs OO vs functional, it's a matter of using the appropriate
tool for the job.
More information about the Python-list