4 ms·
I find Python's OOPiness has a tacked-on feel, with copy.copy and self.x taking the place of more rational syntax. I've only looked at Ruby briefly, but it see
by redthrowaway 15y ago
I find Python's OOPiness has a tacked-on feel, with copy.copy and self.x taking the place of more rational syntax. I've only looked at Ruby briefly, but it seems to be both lispier and oopier than python in an intriguing way. We'll see how I feel after using it in the real world for a bit.
- beza1e1 15y agoWhat is tacked-on about this? copy.copy: Who don't you "from copy import copy"? self.x: It explicitly distuingishes between local variable and field access, which is the Right Thing in my opinion. I do not understand, what this has to do with OOP at all.
- cies 15y agoi get this tacked-on-OO-feeling when i do: def something(self, ...) # inside a class or len(str) # instead of str.len (i know i can do str.__len__) not very convincing reasons right? to me python has a strong foundation in OO. you want a tacked-on-OO-feeling? try php and/or perl :)
- CyberFonic 15y agoI think that the canonical OOP experience is with Smalltalk, e.g. Pharo which is far nicer IMHO than Squeak.