Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?

[Steve Holden]

Chris Carlen wrote:
> Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
>>  "Chris Carlen" <crcarl,,,,dia.gov> wrote:
>>> Form 2:  Use Python and PySerial and TkInter or wxWidgets.
>>> Pro:  Cross-platform goal will likely be achieved fully.  Have a 
>>> programmer nearby with extensive experience who can help.
>>> Con:  Must learn new language and library.  Must possibly learn a 
>>> completely new way of thinking (OOP) not just a new language syntax. 
>>> This might be difficult.
>> This is the way to go. - Trust me on this.
>> When you describe your history, it is almost an exact parallel to mine.
>> In my case, I have been doing real low level stuff (mostly 8031 assembler)
>> since 1982 or so. And then I found python in a GSM module (Telit), and
>> I was intrigued.
>> I really appreciate your comments on OO - it parallels a lot of what I feel 
>> as there is a lot of apparent BS that does not seem to "do anything" at first
>> sight.
>> However-  for the GUI stuff, there is an easily understood relationship between
>> the objects and what you see on the screen - so its a great way of getting
>> into OO - as far as people like you and me will go with it, which is not very
>> far, as we tend to think in machine instructions...
>> And for what its worth - you can programme assembler-like python, and it also 
>> works.
>>
>> The best thing to do is just to spend a few days playing with say Tkinter.
>> I use a reference from the web written by John W Shipman at New Mexico
>> Tech - it is succinct and clear, and deserves more widespread publicity.
>>
>> Google for it - I have lost the link, although I still have the pdf file.
> [edit]
> 
> Thanks for the tip.  The next poster provides the link, which I've got 
> bookmarked now.
> 
> The more I play with Python, the more I like it.  Perhaps I will 
> understand OOP quicker than I thought.  What I've learned so far about 
> names binding to objects instead of values stored in memory cells, etc. 
> has been interesting and fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
I'm happy you are proceeding with so little trouble. Without wishing to 
confuse you, however, I should point out that this aspect of Python has 
very little to do with its object-orientation. There was a language 
called Icon, for example, 20 years ago, that used similar semantics but 
wasn't at all object-oriented.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd           http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb      http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------