interactive help on the base object
breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Dec 9 16:06:35 CET 2013
On 09/12/2013 10:12, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Likewise, WITH A COMPUTER, there is a definite order which can't be
>> countermanded by simply having this artifice called "Object". If you
>> FEE(L)s hadn't noticed (no longer using the insult "foo"s out of
>> respect for the sensativities of the brogrammers), this artifice has
>> just been *called on the floor* with this little innocent question
>> that fired up this discussion again (don't hate the messenger).
>> Again: people entering the community are pointing out a problem --
>> that Object is both trying to be the BASE and the SUPERclass of all
> You're mixing two different terminologies. Whereas "superclass"
> contrasts with "subclass" and connotes an imaginary spatial
> relationship, "base" contrasts with "derived" (not "top"), which
> pairing does not suggest any spatial relationship at all. There is no
> inconsistency in that these two words happen to mean the same thing.
>>> Likewise it doesn't matter whether we draw class hierarchies from the top
>>> down or the bottom up or even sidewise:
>> Have you caught it by now, friends: IT MATTERS TO THE COMPUTER.
> No, I'm pretty sure the computer doesn't care one whit whether the
> inheritance hierarchy that I scribble on a random sheet of paper
> happens to be represented as top-down, bottom-up, left-right,
> right-left, center-out, ana-kata, or using any other conceivable
> spatial relationship that I may have omitted. The computer only cares
> (inasmuch as I'm willing to personify it) about the actual *code* that
> I feed into it. How the programmer abstracts or visualizes that code
> is irrelevant.
MASCOT is the One True Way
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
More information about the Python-list