Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java)

[Mark Lawrence]

On 18/10/2013 21:32, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong"
>> "weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
>
> I can live with that, actually.
>
> The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs. dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. object based vs. true OO.
>
> That probably starts another flame war, but this thread is already running around with its hair on fire.
>
> I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of object-oriented programming. The former can be implemented elegantly in a wide range of languages without much in the way of specific language support, the latter needs to designed into the language to allow a modicum of polymorhpic readability.
>
> It's an important distinction, because a project that is constrained to C should (IMHO) target an object-based design pattern but not an object-oriented one. That said, I'm open to disputation-by-example on this point, provided the example is reasonably small and pretty. (If the only polymorphic C code is ugly and non-small, it sort of proves my point).
>
>

As far as I'm concerned all of the above belongs on 
comp.theoretical.claptrap, give me practicality beats purity any day of 
the week :)

-- 
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this one doesn't.

Mark Lawrence