Functions vs OOP
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sat Sep 3 15:15:28 EDT 2011
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Sat Sep 3 15:15:28 EDT 2011
- Previous message (by thread): Functions vs OOP
- Next message (by thread): Functions vs OOP
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 9/3/2011 12:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > William Gill wrote: > >> During some recent research, and re-familiarization with Python, I came >> across documentation Ours, or someone else's? >> that suggests that programming using functions, and >> programming using objects were somehow opposing techniques. >> >> It seems to me that they are complimentary. It makes sense to create >> objects and have some functions that take those objects as arguments. > > Python is a mixed paradigm language, with object, functional and imperative > paradigms. > >> Are they suggesting that any function that takes an object as an >> argument should always be a method of that object? Or of the class of the object. > Yes. > http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html Since in Python, everything is an object, that would mean that every function has to be a method, which would mean creating classes just to have a class to attach functions to. How awful. (Oh, right, I believe I just described Java.) >> Am I missing something, or am I taking things too literally? > > No, it is the OO purists who are missing something. Yes, Python. -- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message (by thread): Functions vs OOP
- Next message (by thread): Functions vs OOP
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list