Why a class when there will only be one instance?

[Ryan Paul]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:20:02 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

> Ryan Paul <segphault at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> defining a class may be useful if you plan on making more instances down
>> the line. It's a good OO strategy. I do understand your dislike of 'self'.
>> It does seem like clutter. In my code, I shorten it to 's'.
> 
> Please don't do that.  While it's true that the first parameter of a 
> class method can be named anything, the use of "self" is so 
> overwhelmingly ubiquitous it might as well be a standard.  Using 
> anything else is just going to make your code more difficult for anybody 
> else to read and understand.
> 
> Typing is cheap.  Thinking is expensive.  And, yes Aahz, you can quote 
> me on that :-)

I dont conform to a bad standard just because it's a standard. If I did, I
would be using java instead of a dynamic language like python. If other
people dont like it, thats too bad- they dont have to use my code.