Attack a sacred Python Cow

[s0suk3 at gmail.com]

On Jul 24, 5:01 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <52404933-ce08-4dc1-a558-935bbbae7... at r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Jordan
> wrote:
>
> > Except when it comes to Classes. I added some classes to code that had
> > previously just been functions, and you know what I did - or rather,
> > forgot to do? Put in the 'self'. In front of some of the variable
> > accesses, but more noticably, at the start of *every single method
> > argument list.*
>
> The reason is quite simple. Python is not truly an "object-oriented"
> language. It's sufficiently close to fool those accustomed to OO ways of
> doing things, but it doesn't force you to do things that way. You still
> have the choice. An implicit "self" would take away that choice.

By that logic, C++ is not OO. By that logic, Ruby is not OO. By that
logic, I know of only one OO language: Java :)

The fact that a language doesn't force you to do object-oriented
programming doesn't mean that it's not object-oriented. In other
words, your words are nonsense.

Sebastian