Not fully OO ?

[Aaron "Castironpi" Brady]

On Sep 27, 6:55 pm, "Tim Rowe" <digi... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castiro... at gmail.com>:
>
> > No way.  It's *zero* instead of one, if so, because the only thing C#
> > has is a bunch of handcuffs and implicit 'self'.  You have a line
> > like:
>
> You don't follow what I said, and from your tone I get the feeling you
> don't *want* to follow what I'm saying, not because I'm criticising
> Python (I'm not), but because I'm guilty of the heresy of suggesting
> that it's not actually simultaneoulsy optimised for every possible
> use.
>
> My point is that there are zero parameters as far as I am concerned
> because I don't actually touch most of the GUI code.  There could
> actually be hundreds of parameters, for all I care. They're not my
> concern. Most of the time I like that -- the tools are doing my work
> for me.
>
> --
> Tim Rowe

flamewar.avert( ), please.  Yes, I agree, I did not follow every
word.  It's a fundamental disagreement about successful ways to
communicate, and, for the philosophers, successful communication,
whether I should have nitpicked first thing, or tried to go along with
the gist.  I tried the latter.  In your case, I guessed wrong.  Sorry.

Before I tried wxFormBuilder, I imagined that C# would be vastly
faster to develop than Python, for anything requiring any non-trivial
graphical interface.  I've done extensive VB, so I can attest to that
personally.  It is not.  The difference in dev times is about the time
it takes to write:

def onClick( event ):
   ...
controlA.bind( wx.MOUSEDOWN, onClick )

perhaps several times, which, <glances at watch>, is not long.  You do
get the IDE, true, and that code is auto-crafted for you.  But 'wx'
does give you data in an XML file, instead of a script.  And talk
about a difference in identifiers:

<form>
  <button>
     <pos>20,30</pos>
     <color>gray</color>
  </button>
</form>

vs.

form.button.pos= 20, 30
form.button.color= gray

You can come up with examples that favor either.  But the opposite of
statistical is anecdotal.  Sorry again.

The last time I 'checked in' at your post, your claim was "an hour or
so" vs. "ages".  Hence my responses.  You could probably sneak by by
claiming a factor of *two*, but if you were exaggerating, please say
so at any time.

Penultimately, forgive my sarcasm--- I'm a bit feisty right now.  I
was distinguishing between arguments in particular, and identifiers in
general.

And lastly, "simultaneoulsy optimised for every possible use" is a
bold claim that I didn't make, at least, to come forward, in so many
words.  I do believe, and it shows, as of today, and you can quote me
on this, that it's "pretty generally applicable", though I reserve the
right to change my mind on the matter with or without notice.
Especially if I learn something.  I do not believe that C# is pretty
generally applicable.  I maintain that I will adjust that estimate if
I ever get any facts about C#, since I don't have very many.  (In
fact, outside of my VB, COM, and MFC experience, you could say I have
no clue.  Very tongue in cheek.)

In fact, do a Google for 'castironpi "every possible"'.  You get a
"can't ... every possible", and your post, and something else.  That's
it.

Python has a lot of things C# doesn't.  Can we agree on that?