Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java)

[rusi]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:09:59 PM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
> On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> 
> > Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by 
> introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a 
> run time dependent sub-class. Even Python, which isn't strongly typed, 
> manages polymorphism by allowing the self argument to a sub-class of the 
> method class.
> 
> 
> Yes and the reference I earlier gave was just for that:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
> 
> Ironically he describes the whole 'polymorphism-in-C' infrastructure there but does not call it that.
> 
> The first line however in the sequel article http://lwn.net/Articles/446317/
> does just that. Heres the quote:

I would be a bit remiss if I left it at that -- yeah Mark is clueless about his history and philosophy.  However the general usage of the word polymorphism in the OOP community is not much better.

Cardelli and Wegner:
http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf
give a conspectus of the field.  Especially section 1.3 shows that the word can mean one of 4 very different and unrelated ideas.

OOP aficionados think one of them to be the only one.