OOP books?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Asun Friere a écrit :
> On Oct 16, 7:12 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
> <bdesth.quelquech... at free.quelquepart.fr> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Not a word about Python in it, but:http://www.amazon.com/Design-Patterns-Object-Oriented-Addison-Wesley-...
>>
>> A must-read if you want to understand OO (MHO of course).
> 
> Yes, if only to see how many of the design patterns in C++ are not
> applicable to Python ;)

s/not applicable/not needed/

Indeed, some of the canonical DP are kind of workaround the lack of 
dynamism in C++ and Java. At least if you stop at the implementation 
example. But remember they are *design* patterns, not implementation 
patterns. The point is that some of these patterns are so "integrated" 
in idiomatic Python you just don't see them no more - but still they are 
here (iterator anyone ?)

>  But seriously, the Gang of Four book is the
> classic book for design patterns.  I agree that it is required
> reading, but it probably requires a working knowledge of basic OO
> design to get much out of it.

I'd say a minimal working knowledge of basic OO concepts (classes, 
instances, attributes, methods, polymorphic dispatch and inheritance) 
and UML notation (mostly class diagrams). Most of what there is to know 
about OO *design* is what this book is about. Hint : don't jump to the 
patterns section, start with a careful reading of the whole introduction.

> At a more basic level a good UML primer (such as Page-Jones'
> 'Fundamentals of OO Design in UML') will get you thinking about OO
> Design and is worth a look.  If only to see how many of the Java-like
> concepts are not applicable to Python.

Yeps. One of the problems with UML is that it's way too much C++/Java 
centric.

> Has anyone looked at, and have any opinions about, this rather
> expensive tome? Goldwasser & Letcher 'Object-Oriented Programming in
> Python'
> http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Programming-Python-Michael-Goldwasser/dp/0136150314/

 From the readers reviews:
"""
The title is a little misleading unless you take it as a literal python 
statement. It is true that there is object-oriented programming IN 
python. It is also true that this book discusses object-oriented 
programming IN python. But the book does little to discuss 
object-oriented programming WITH python.
"""