> Okay. This makes sense if the software is:
>
> 1) Designed by one institution.
> 2) Designed almost entirely before deployment.
> 3) Not designed to be worked on by users and
> semi-trained developers.
>
> In other words --- proprietary software.
In my experience, it doesn't work well even i
On Monday 27 June 2005 02:34 am, Alan Gauld wrote:
> "Uwe Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > con: If you are planning larger applications (for a reasonable
> > [...]
> > Then you will want to specify interfaces, accessor functions
> with different
> > read /wri
"Uwe Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> con: If you are planning larger applications (for a reasonable
value of
> "large") you have to discipline yourself to write well
structured code.
As always.
> Then you will want to specify interfaces, accessor functions
wi
On the accessor function topic. Here is a good description of why you
don't need accessors in python (among other things) written by the
main PEAK(http://peak.telecommunity.com/) developer (Phillip J. Eby):
http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
Some other useful articles in a simi
Uwe Mayer wrote:
> con: If you are planning larger applications (for a reasonable value of
> "large") you have to discipline yourself to write well structured code.
This is definitely true, no matter the language you use.
> Then you will want to specify interfaces,
If you're really interested i
Hi,
I have come across the following statement a number of times:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-July/171805.html
[... how to enforce pure abstract class ...]
> Python, in general, doesn't try to stop the programmer doing things, the
> way many other languages do. This is know
