Not fully OO ?
Aaron "Castironpi" Brady
castironpi at gmail.com
Sun Sep 28 03:29:30 CEST 2008
On Sep 27, 6:55 pm, "Tim Rowe" <digi... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castiro... at gmail.com>:
> > No way. It's *zero* instead of one, if so, because the only thing C#
> > has is a bunch of handcuffs and implicit 'self'. You have a line
> > like:
> You don't follow what I said, and from your tone I get the feeling you
> don't *want* to follow what I'm saying, not because I'm criticising
> Python (I'm not), but because I'm guilty of the heresy of suggesting
> that it's not actually simultaneoulsy optimised for every possible
> My point is that there are zero parameters as far as I am concerned
> because I don't actually touch most of the GUI code. There could
> actually be hundreds of parameters, for all I care. They're not my
> concern. Most of the time I like that -- the tools are doing my work
> for me.
> Tim Rowe
flamewar.avert( ), please. Yes, I agree, I did not follow every
word. It's a fundamental disagreement about successful ways to
communicate, and, for the philosophers, successful communication,
whether I should have nitpicked first thing, or tried to go along with
the gist. I tried the latter. In your case, I guessed wrong. Sorry.
Before I tried wxFormBuilder, I imagined that C# would be vastly
faster to develop than Python, for anything requiring any non-trivial
graphical interface. I've done extensive VB, so I can attest to that
personally. It is not. The difference in dev times is about the time
it takes to write:
def onClick( event ):
controlA.bind( wx.MOUSEDOWN, onClick )
perhaps several times, which, <glances at watch>, is not long. You do
get the IDE, true, and that code is auto-crafted for you. But 'wx'
does give you data in an XML file, instead of a script. And talk
about a difference in identifiers:
form.button.pos= 20, 30
You can come up with examples that favor either. But the opposite of
statistical is anecdotal. Sorry again.
The last time I 'checked in' at your post, your claim was "an hour or
so" vs. "ages". Hence my responses. You could probably sneak by by
claiming a factor of *two*, but if you were exaggerating, please say
so at any time.
Penultimately, forgive my sarcasm--- I'm a bit feisty right now. I
was distinguishing between arguments in particular, and identifiers in
And lastly, "simultaneoulsy optimised for every possible use" is a
bold claim that I didn't make, at least, to come forward, in so many
words. I do believe, and it shows, as of today, and you can quote me
on this, that it's "pretty generally applicable", though I reserve the
right to change my mind on the matter with or without notice.
Especially if I learn something. I do not believe that C# is pretty
generally applicable. I maintain that I will adjust that estimate if
I ever get any facts about C#, since I don't have very many. (In
fact, outside of my VB, COM, and MFC experience, you could say I have
no clue. Very tongue in cheek.)
In fact, do a Google for 'castironpi "every possible"'. You get a
"can't ... every possible", and your post, and something else. That's
Python has a lot of things C# doesn't. Can we agree on that?
More information about the Python-list