Attack a sacred Python Cow

[s0suk3 at gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 6:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <024ace13-f72f-4093-bcc9-f8a339c32... at v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes it is, because it has "this".

You mean the keyword "this"? It's just a feature. How does that make a
difference on being or not being OO?

(It's true that C++ has more OO features than Python, like private/
public members, virtual methods, etc. But I don't see how a trivial
feature like an additional keyword makes a difference.)