OO re-factoring (was Pythonese/Efficiency/Generalese critique [on Tutor])

[Lee Cullens]

Thanks for the comment Dan,

Yes, that much I'm aware of.  I just thought I'd refactor my little  
utility in an OO approach as an exercise.  What I've learned so far  
is that my non-OO approach is in this situation very efficient,  
succinct and non-duplicative.  Except for avoiding multiple argument  
passing (globals not even considered ;') there seems little to be  
gained.  Even so, one learns best by doing and I'm gaining a better  
understanding of OOP (and where to apply such).  The oak trees are  
hard on this old head though :~)

Thanks again,
Lee C


On Jun 8, 2005, at 11:40 PM, python-list-request at python.org wrote:

> Subject: Re: OO re-factoring (was Pythonese/Efficiency/Generalese  
> critique [on Tutor])
>
>
> Dan Sommers wrote:
>
>
>> I don't remember the original post, but methods and recursion are  
>> *not*
>> mutually exclusive (e.g., an Integer class with a factorial  
>> method, or a
>> binary tree class whose nodes are also binary trees).
>>
>
> Also, don't think that you have to make everything OO.
> OO isn't necessarily better than non-OO. It's a means
> to an end, not an end in itself.
>
> -- 
> Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
> University of Canterbury,
> Christchurch, New Zealand
> http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20050609/71bd568e/attachment.html>