anomaly

[Mark Lawrence]

On 11/05/2015 16:48, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:11 AM, zipher <dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I also bought the idea of everything as an object, it has a unbeatable purity to it.  But we won't ever get to the point were OOP is like the purity of math because the greatest utility of OOP is working with real-world data.  And that real-world puts bounds on the otherwise abstract purity in which a language is theoretically capable.
>
> Did someone here say it would? Sure, OOP isn't as pure as math, but
> most object-oriented languages aren't pure OO languages, either.
> (Maybe Smalltalk?) In Python, when you want to manipulate bazillions
> of numbers, you use numpy, pandas, etc. In C++, you code in the C
> subset it (still) contains when you don't want objects.
>
> The practicality side of things suggests that even though
> everything-is-an-object isn't perfect, it may be good enough.
> People/projects/companies generally can't afford to follow every
> change that blows through their environment. That's why (for example),
> COBOL lasted so long. In fact, I suspect you could still make a good
> living writing COBOL, if you really wanted to. (Searching indeed.com
> for "COBOL" in Chicago, IL gave me 81 hits.)
>
> Python was never meant to be "pure". It has, by Guido's own admission,
> borrowed ideas from many other languages. Very little in Python is
> truly new, certainly not its object model. At the user level
> everything appears to be an object, but not everything is under the
> covers (e.g., numeric elements of array objects).
>
> Skip
>

Are you aware that you're attempting to communicate with a known troll 
who thankfully has been absent for some years?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence