is python Object oriented??

thmpsn.m.k at gmail.com thmpsn.m.k at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 18:40:59 CET 2009


On Jan 30, 2:32 pm, Michael Torrie <torr... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Veerendra Ganiger wrote:
> > Python is not purely object oriented programming, because we can write
> > functions without any class.
> > You are right, predefined class attributes are available when we write or
> > execute a piece of python code without defining class, that means it's just
> > using objects for it's purpose. It does not mean its purely object oriented.
>
> To be clear, python does not force you to lay out your code according to
> some strict object-oriented paradigm.  But Python itself is still purely
> object-oriented, as is your script when parsed.
>
> This function without a class that you mentioned, is in fact an object
> with attributes.  You can pass a function around just like any other
> object.  Even calling a function is invoked like so:
>
> myfunc.__call__(params)
>
> So necessitating that code be inside a class has nothing to do with
> object-oriented programming.  Let's not forget that classes are
> themselves objects (metaobjects in smalltalk parlance if I recall
> correctly).
>
> Now python does not have any way besides lambda expressions of creating
> unbound function objects, but in practice this doesn't matter as I can
> rebind names freely.  I can still do:
>
> a=myfunc
> myfunc=some other expression or object
>
> > It all depends on implementation, I think even we can make "C" object
> > oriented with proper implementation.
>
> Indeed, any code based on gobject libraries can be object-oriented in
> design and function.

But it's only a faking, and things such as inheritance and
polymorphism are implemented clumsily (actually I'm not even sure
about polymorphism). And of course, there are still no private
members.




More information about the Python-list mailing list