Not fully OO ?

Eduardo O. Padoan eduardo.padoan at gmail.com
Sat Sep 20 16:40:25 CEST 2008


On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 20 Sep., 12:14, Fredrik Lundh <fred... at pythonware.com> wrote:
>> Kay Schluehr wrote:
>> > Answer: if you want to define an entity it has to be defined inside a
>> > class. If you want to access an entity you have to use the dot
>> > operator. Therefore Java is OO but Python is not.
>>
>> you're satirising the quoted author's cargo-cultish view of object
>> orientation, right?
>>
>> </F>
>
> I wonder if the OO fetish hasn't already lost much of its magic
> powers. What are the most powerful fetishes these days? A year ago I
> would have suspected "purely functional" but I'm not sure it has
> really caught on.

I think the current fetish is paralelism and  erlang's share-nothing
concurrency model. Or something like it.


> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>



-- 
    Eduardo de Oliveira Padoan
http://djangopeople.net/edcrypt/
http://stopforwarding.us/etiq.html



More information about the Python-list mailing list