Another try at Python's selfishness

[Charles Krug]

On 2006-02-08, Ben Wilson <dausha at gmail.com> wrote:
> "But the point is, the current situation is not newbie-friendly (I can
> tell, I am a newbie)"
>
> I will agree to that, as I consider myself still new. _But_, it's a
> stumbling stone only briefly. Get enough nagging error messages, and
> you learn and move on. I agree with the grandparent poster that it is a
> perfect self-documenting thing, as the use of 'self' is pretty obvious.
> For a language that one can learn in a short time, this is a tempest in
> a teacup.
>

This old C hound finds it much more sensible than C++ or Java, where the
"self" parameter (called "this") is implicit rather than explicit and
you just sorta kinda hafta "know" it's there and the correct syntax to
use to reference it.

Then there's all the places where you need a Secret Decoder Ring--in
Java you have to define the equivalents of stdout and stdin as they
aren't provided.  In c++ you can't overload the << operator in your
class, you have to use a "friend" function and you have to return an
ostream--the "Rule of Three" for constructors, and just generally lots
of small knotty issues to bite beginners.

9 times out of 10, Python "Just Works" the first time and things do what
your mind says they "should" without having to learn a seventeen special
cases to everything.

IMO, YMMV, Not Valid in Vermont, Happy Fun Ball may accellerate to
dangerous speeds.  Do NOT taunt Happy Fun Ball.