is None or == None ?

[Carl Banks]

On Nov 6, 11:41 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al... at start.no> wrote:
> Note that the object implementation's complexity doesn't have to affect to any
> other code since it's trivial to provide abstract accessors (even macros), i.e.,
> this isn't part of a trade-off except if the original developer(s) had limited
> resources  --  and if so then it wasn't a trade-off at the language design level
> but a trade-off of getting things done then and there.

I totally disagree with this; it would be like squaring the
implementation complexity.  It is far from "trivial" as you claim.
Even if it were just a matter of accessor macros (and it isn't) they
don't write themselves, especially when you focused on speed, so
that's a non-trivial complexity increase already.  But you besides
writing code you now have reading code (which is now cluttered with
all kinds of ugly accessor macros, as if the Python API wasn't ugly
enough), debugging code, maintaining code, understanding semantics and
nuances, handling all the extra corner cases.  To say it's trivial is
absurd.


> >  C# made a
> > different trade-off, choosing a more complex implementation, a
> > language with two starkly different object semantic behaviors, so as
> > to allow better performance.
>
> Don't know about the implementation of C#, but whatever it is, if it's bad in
> some respect then that has nothing to do with Python.

C# is a prototypical example of a language that does what you were
suggesting (also it draws upon frameworks like COM, which you
mentioned) so it is a basis of comparison of the benefits versus
drawbacks of the two approaches.


Carl Banks