A Python 3000 Question

Paul Boddie paul at boddie.org.uk
Tue Oct 30 17:27:05 CET 2007

On 30 Okt, 15:09, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:

[Language "OOness", hand-waving]

> I disagree. I think they *do* take away from the overall Object-Oriented
> nature of the language, and that is A Very Good Thing Indeed.

But everything is an object in Python: nothing has been taken
away. ;-) Anyway, I don't sympathise with the "methods for everything"
mentality, either, but there's a reason for Java doing things this way
- for Python, in fact, you actually get something extra over and above
Java's implementation of object-orientation.


> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns...

As always, a pinch of salt is required when reading the works of
certain commentators (or skimming them, for those making slightly
better use of their time). Some choice words sum up the attitude we
see in works like this:


Thankfully, various decisions in the design of Python and its built-in
types and functions let us leave such squabbles to eat up the time of
the Ruby and Java fanboys.


More information about the Python-list mailing list