Attack a sacred Python Cow

s0suk3 at gmail.com s0suk3 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 04:47:12 EDT 2008


On Jul 28, 1:55 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <c578790e-dfb4-4c7f-8647-282ab5f8a... at y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 10:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <6385b0a8-f7f3-4dc3-91be-e6f158ffb... at a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Jul 26, 6:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> >> In message
> >> >> <024ace13-f72f-4093-bcc9-f8a339c32... at v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Jul 24, 5:01 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> >> >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> In message
>
> <52404933-ce08-4dc1-a558-935bbbae7... at r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> >> >> >> Jordan wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Except when it comes to Classes. I added some classes to code
> >> >> >> > that had previously just been functions, and you know what I did
> >> >> >> > - or rather, forgot to do? Put in the 'self'. In front of some of
> >> >> >> > the variable accesses, but more noticably, at the start of *every
> >> >> >> > single method argument list.*
>
> >> >> >> The reason is quite simple. Python is not truly an
> >> >> >> "object-oriented" language. It's sufficiently close to fool those
> >> >> >> accustomed to OO ways of doing things, but it doesn't force you to
> >> >> >> do things that way. You still have the choice. An implicit "self"
> >> >> >> would take away that choice.
>
> >> >> > By that logic, C++ is not OO.
>
> >> >> Yes it is, because it has "this".
>
> >> > You mean the keyword "this"? It's just a feature. How does that make a
> >> > difference on being or not being OO?
>
> >> Because it was one of the things the OP was complaining about (see
> >> above).
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Reread what the OP said.

Stop quoting only portions of my posts that lead to misinterpretation
of them. Next time you quote, be sure to quote this (which I also
mentioned in the previous post):

What the OP complains about has no relevance on what makes a language
OO or not.

Do you believe otherwise?




More information about the Python-list mailing list