[Tutor] Volunteer teacher

[avi.e.gross at gmail.com]

Dumb Question.

Every damn language I have done so-called object-oriented programming in
DOES IT DIFFERENT.

Some have not quite proper objects and use tricks to fake it to a point.
Some have very precise objects you can only access parts of  in certain
ways, if at all, and others are so free-for all that it takes ingenuity to
hide things so a user can not get around you and so on.

If you had a book on generic object-oriented techniques and then saw Python
or R or JAVA and others, what would their experience be?

And I thing things do not always exist in a vacuum. Even when writing a
program that uses OO I also use functional methods, recursion and anything
else I feel like. Just learning OO may leave them stranded in Python!

-----Original Message-----
From: Tutor <tutor-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com at python.org> On Behalf Of
Mats Wichmann
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 3:27 PM
To: tutor at python.org
Subject: Re: [Tutor] Volunteer teacher

On 7/23/22 13:14, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 04:53:22 -0500, Leam Hall <leamhall at gmail.com> 
> declaimed the following:
> 
>>
>> For the latter, Python Object Oriented Programming
(https://www.amazon.com/Python-Object-Oriented-Programming-maintainable-obje
ct-oriented/dp/1801077266).
>>
> 
> 	<snicker>
> 
> 	A rather unfortunate name... Acronym POOP... "Object Oriented 
> Programming in Python" avoids such <G>
> 
> 	Of course -- my view is that, if one is going to focus on OOP, one 
> should precede it with an introduction to a language-neutral OOAD
textbook.


Maybe... I haven't looked at one for so long, but I'd worry that they'd nod
too much to existing implementations like Java which enforce a rather
idiotic "everything must be a class even if it isn't, like your
main() routine".

_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor