Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 08:17:55 CET 2009


On Jan 14, 9:51 pm, Michele Simionato <michele.simion... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:48 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I started looking at Scala a while back. It is has many nice features.
> > It seamlessly combines object orientation with advanced functional
> > programming.
>
> I don't like that. Scala was designed with the idea of putting
> together the two worlds, by I think the result was to get the
> complications of both worlds. I don't think a SML-like functional
> language needs to be integrated with object orientation, it is fine
> just without it. The old quote
> applies:
>
> """
> Programming languages should be designed not by piling feature on top
> of feature, but by removing the weaknesses and restrictions that make
> additional features appear necessary. -- William Clinger
> """

I haven't used Scala yet, but I can't see any inherent problem with
combining OO and functional programming. Doesn't Python itself do that
to some extent, after all? The two paradigms are actually
complementary: FP is stateless and the OOP is state-based.

Some problems are best solved using OOP and some are best solved using
FP. Are you suggesting that a programmer should use a different
language for each problem? What if a software project involves many
subproblems, some of which are best solved using OOP and others of
which are best solved using FP? Should one language be used for one
part of the project and another language for the other? I don't think
so.



More information about the Python-list mailing list