> whereas a more idiomatic approach is imho a better way to go. I don't know what you mean by "idiomatic approach". That phrase, I thought, refers to languages

> whereas a more idiomatic approach is imho a better way to go. I don't know what you mean by "idiomatic approach". That phrase, I thought, refers to languages that are highly opinionated about using a specific style -- this philosophy is encoded in Python's philosophy: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. > Pretty much every popular OOP language does it either by naming a constructor the same name as the class name or through some form of a `construct` notation Seems kind of arbitrary to complain about the constructor keyword `__init__` when the constructor word for pre-ES6 JS, C, Perl, Ruby varies between prototype, constructor, __construct(), and new. Not sure how you say Python's use of `__init__` is somehow worse. As for why `self`, no idea, but seems to be a pretty easy convention to figure out. As for the complaint about the `if __name__ == '__main__':`, to which language are you referring to that has a more self-evident way of encapsulating that functionality?