Deirdre:
Why is non-OO better? I've coded in JAVA (not in Python) and have found very
little need for anything beyond what is available in JAVA, especially when I
want to be able to compile the code, which is possible to do in using JAVA, but
I haven't heard of this being true in Python...
I find JAVA (and C++) generic programming libraries most useful, and real time
savers. Plus, I like having stable language bindings for CORBA. I believe
Python IDL bindings are still being developed...
Just wondering,
Maureen Lecuona
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Robert Kiesling wrote:
>
> > Looks `way cool, but I'm not yet sold on python. What does Python
> > offer that Smalltalk doesn't (that's the only other widely known
> > object oriented environment I can think of).
>
> Python is compiled down to a bytecode level, so it's faster for one
> thing. Smalltalk can be godawful slow. Also, it's not OO-only. It would be
> more appropriate to think of Python as an OO language that isn't (like
> Smalltalk and Java) fanatical about the OO to the point of
> uselessness. Unlike Java, it offers multiple inheritane (not a bandaid
> workaround like Java has).
>
> --
> _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
> My three rules for happy living: No Windows, No Java, No Perl.
> "I'd love to have the green paint concession on the next Matrix movie."
> -- Rick Moen
>
> ************
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
