Attack a sacred Python Cow

[s0suk3 at gmail.com]

On Jul 27, 10:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message
> <6385b0a8-f7f3-4dc3-91be-e6f158ffb... at a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Because it was one of the things the OP was complaining about (see above).

Wrong. What the OP complains about has no relevance on what makes a
language OO or not.