4 ms·
if they mean "turn the currently fat, repetitive scripts into slim wrappers which call into a well-structured collection of well-composed classes of objects, wh
by gjvc 12y ago
if they mean "turn the currently fat, repetitive scripts into slim wrappers which call into a well-structured collection of well-composed classes of objects, which closely match the problem domain, thus promoting code reuse, and fix once, benefit everywhere behavior", then good.
difficult to comment properly without more context.
- CyberFonic 12y agoContext is the key to getting a better answer to your question. For any sufficiently large code base you would need to adopt some structure, e.g. modules and/or well designed functions, to ensure that the system is maintainable. Classes are just one to encapsulate state and behaviour so it doesn't leak all over the place.
- rodrigoreis22 12y agoIt's not currently fat and repetitive.. it has decent layered-organized structure.. My argument is that you can have many of the benefits of OOP in Python just using modules. When you need many instances, each with its own isolated state, or you need inheritance.. then go for classes.