Could Python supplant Java?
laotseu
bdesth at nospam.free.fr
Thu Aug 22 12:45:10 EDT 2002
James J. Besemer wrote:
>>Rob Andrews <rob[nospam]@uselesspython.com> wrote in message news:<Xns92705C2BCBA0Erobuselesspythoncom at 24.28.95.158>...
>>[snipped...]
>>
>>>*dynamic v. static* and *strong v. weak* are two distinct categories,
>>>although the ability to point to a concise explanation is beyond me
>>>presently.
>>
>
> The way I was taught the distinction was EARLY vs. LATE BINDING.
>
[snip]
>
> Some more zealous sources claim that "polymorphism" and other OOP techniques are impossible with early binding and thus
> require late binding to make it possible. This is bullshit.
>
Of course, or Java and C++ couldn't make it.
> However, saying both systems are "strong" suggests a near-equivlance when in fact the semantics and implications for
> developers are rather different.
>
> There are significant trade-offs to either approach.
Idem.
> People who think 'their' language is 'perfect' tend to believe the
> approach used by their favorite language is 'best'.
>
> Thus, true Pythonistas will argue that late binding (by any other name) is superior.
I may not be true one !-)
I was justing disagreeing when FISH argues that
- late binding (to use your terminology) disqualifies a language for
large projects - in fact for anything else than scripting.
- early binding is always safer (it's very easy to demonstrate that it
may be false, with a C example using void * and casting).
Laotseu
> --jb
>
> --
> James J. Besemer 503-280-0838 voice
> http://cascade-sys.com 503-280-0375 fax
> mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
>
>
>
More information about the Python-list
mailing list