kirby urner wrote: >With PataPata, it seems you're unhappy with Python being a crystal >clear implementation of a simple paradigm > Is Python really a clear implementation of a simple paradigm? I assume you are meaning OO. Or if that is not is what you are saying here, it is what I keeping here you say, nonetheless.
That, it seems to me, is a box you are placing it in - your own OO dogma - and in fact relates back to our differeing views - at least at one point - about the purpose of properties. You seemed to me to have seen properties as Python retracing a step that it had missed in implementing OO orthodoxy, and I saw it as Python being Python, going its merry way, being unconcerned about OO orthodoxy, and it was exactly in placing properties in this OO box that you were misintepreting them, and as an educator, miseducating about them. When I began to study Lisp a bit, I found myself quite comfortable in drawing from my Python background. Didn't Ian Bicking say here recently that he does not see OO as central to how he understands and uses Python? Or was I misinterpreting? It continues to seem to me that as much as you are an advocate for Python, you see it through a filter of your own experience and background and expectations that makes it less than what it is. Which is maybe why it is more clear to you than to me. Placed in a nice regular ployhedra Python is soothing to you. Having less experience, background and expectations and leaving in a irregular, non-metric world of projective geometry perhaps there is something to my feeling that I see Python as it is more clearly than do you. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
