[Tutor] Objects, persistence & getting

[Mike Hansen]

> Subject:
> Re: [Tutor] Objects, persistence & getting
> From:
> "Alan Gauld" <alan.gauld at freenet.co.uk>
> Date:
> Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:48:28 -0000
> To:
> "Liam Clarke" <cyresse at gmail.com>, "Tutor Tutor" <tutor at python.org>
>
> To:
> "Liam Clarke" <cyresse at gmail.com>, "Tutor Tutor" <tutor at python.org>
>
>
>>Well, one thing learning Java is good for is for thoroughly
>>demystifying OOP.
>>    
>>
>
><HOTBUTTON>
>I'd have to disagree here because Java's version of OOP has
>very little to do with real OOP. Java just uss classes as
>a kind of modularisation mechanism and does not make much
>use of tthe real OO features. In fact it doesn't even
>support several of the things that enable real OO
>programming.
>
>And its class library, a strong feature because it is a
>standard, is dreadful from an OOP p[erspective. In fact
>I usually refer to Java as a Class Oriented Programming
>rather than Object Oriented.
>
>It is possible to use Java in an OOP way (read Brice Eckel's
>"Thinking in Java" to see how) but the language itself
>encourages a style of programming that is much more like
>Pythons modules than true OOP.
>
>  
>
>>It's not some magical acronym of programming
>>goodness, it's just an 'organic' way to organise code.
>>    
>>
>
>Certainly in Java thats true, and indeed even at the
>higher level OOP is a way of organizing code - by
>finding high level abstractions and building tree
>structures based on common intefaces. But Java doesn't
>encourage that structuring as much as Python does!
></HOTBUTTON>
>  
>
>Alan G.
>
>  
>
I've been reading The Object Oriented Thought Process, and it's been 
clearing up the OOP mystery for me. After reading a big chunk of it, I 
re-read the OOP sections in Learning Python. It's making a lot more 
sense now.

Mike