On 09/08/12 03:59, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:31:57 +0100, lipska the kat
declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
[snip]
If a "node" is a father or mother, and it takes one of each to
produce a "leaf", your "tree" has just collapsed.
This would
On 09/08/12 12:59, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:31:57 +0100, lipska the kat
declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
A Tree consists of Node(s) and Leaf(s), relationships are modelled by
following the Line(s) in the Tree diagram and that is it. Line may be a
cla
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> (As they say: I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas
> executes one.)
If proper excuse you can trump any,
You may wind up a Limited Company
You cannot conveniently blow it up!
-- WS Gilbert, "Utopia, Ltd"
But not every "is-a
Who could have predicted that a request for suggesting books on OOP can
come so far!
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:31 PM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 08/08/12 17:42, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:51:45 +0100, lipska the kat
>> declaimed the following in
>> gmane.comp.python.ge
On 08/08/12 17:42, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:51:45 +0100, lipska the kat
declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
The point I'm obviously struggling to make is that words convey concepts
The word Person conveys a whole lifetime of experience of People and a
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:27:40 -0700, rusi wrote:
> I once sat for a presentation of a wannabe university teacher. The
> subject she chose was object-orientation.
>
> She spent some time on the usual dope about employee, manager etc.
> Finally she reached the base-class: Person.
>
> Or so we thoug
On Aug 8, 2:51 pm, lipska the kat wrote:
> The point I'm obviously struggling to make is that words convey concepts
> The word Person conveys a whole lifetime of experience of People and as
> imperfect human beings many of us are unable to tease out 'bits of being
> a person' that are relevant to
On 07/08/12 22:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:00 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
I'm still undecided over the whole 'User' thing actually,
[snip]
This makes little sense to my mind. If you can have a "class User:",
why can you not have a "class Person:" ?
User and Person are
On Aug 8, 12:14 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> You claim that named Patterns simplify and clarify communication. If you
> have to look the terms up, they aren't simplifying and clarifying
> communication, they are obfuscating it.
By that argument, an encyclopaedia is useless because if you have to
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> NoneType raises an error if you try to create a second instance. bool
> just returns one of the two singletons (doubletons?) again.
>
> py> type(None)()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "", line 1, in
> TypeError: cannot creat
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:07:59 -0700, alex23 wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that people could talk about good coding design before
>> the Gof4. As you say, they didn't invent the patterns. So people
>> obviously wrote code, and talked about algorithms, without the Gof4
>> terminology.
>
> So what did pe
On Aug 8, 5:02 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I haven't read the Gang of Four book itself, but I've spent plenty of
> time being perplexed by over-engineered, jargon-filled code, articles,
> posts and discussions by people who use Design Patterns as an end to
> themselves rather than a means to an e
On 8/7/2012 3:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:31 -0700, alex23 wrote:
I think you've entirely missed the point of Design Patterns.
Perhaps I have. Or perhaps I'm just (over-)reacting to the abuse of
Patterns:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DesignPatternsConsideredHarmful
or
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:00 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> I'm still undecided over the whole 'User' thing actually, I don't think I
> can see a time when I will have a User Class in one of my systems but as I
> don't want to get 'dogmatic' about this I remain open to any ideas that
> might include s
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:31 -0700, alex23 wrote:
> I think you've entirely missed the point of Design Patterns.
Perhaps I have. Or perhaps I'm just (over-)reacting to the abuse of
Patterns:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DesignPatternsConsideredHarmful
or maybe I'm just not convinced that Design Patt
On 07/08/12 16:04, rusi wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:34 pm, lipska the kat wrote:
Never thought so for a moment, good to know you can be reasonable as
well as misguided ;-)
Well Lipska I must say that I find something resonant about the 'no-
person' thing, though I am not sure what.
You also said som
On Aug 7, 7:34 pm, lipska the kat wrote:
>
> Never thought so for a moment, good to know you can be reasonable as
> well as misguided ;-)
Well Lipska I must say that I find something resonant about the 'no-
person' thing, though I am not sure what.
You also said something about 'user' being more
On 07/08/12 15:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:19:31 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
But what *really* gets me is not the existence of poor terminology. I
couldn't care less what terminology Java programmers use among
themselves.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:19:31 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
>> But what *really* gets me is not the existence of poor terminology. I
>> couldn't care less what terminology Java programmers use among
>> themselves.
>
> I'd be most grateful if you cou
On 07/08/12 14:12, Ben Finney wrote:
lipska the kat writes:
The ONLY concept that you should never try to encapsulate is/are
human beings or their aliases.
You stated this in absolute, dogmatic terms. I thought at first you were
being hyperbolic for effect, but the situation that you present
lipska the kat writes:
> The ONLY concept that you should never try to encapsulate is/are
> human beings or their aliases.
You stated this in absolute, dogmatic terms. I thought at first you were
being hyperbolic for effect, but the situation that you present to
support this dogma is o
On 07/08/12 10:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:23:19 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
On 06/08/12 13:19, rusi wrote:
I suggest this
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.in/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-
nouns.html
http://bpfurtado.livejournal.com/2006/10/21/
Unfortunately the aut
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:23:19 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 06/08/12 13:19, rusi wrote:
>> I suggest this
>> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.in/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-
nouns.html
>
> http://bpfurtado.livejournal.com/2006/10/21/
Unfortunately the author (Bruno Furtado) has missed the poi
On 07/08/12 06:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:55:24 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
[snip]
The clue is in the name 'Object Oriented' ... anything else is (or
should be) imp
On 07/08/12 06:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:24:10 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
er, the point I was trying to make is that when you say 'interface' it
could mean so many things. If you say 'facade' everyone knows exactly
what you are talking about. And that is EXACTLY the po
On 07/08/2012 02:12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:17:33 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Please see my comment at the bottom hint hint :)
Please trim unnecessary quoted text.
We don't need to see the entire thread of comment/reply/reply-to-reply
duplicated in *every* email.
P
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:24:10 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> er, the point I was trying to make is that when you say 'interface' it
> could mean so many things. If you say 'facade' everyone knows exactly
> what you are talking about. And that is EXACTLY the point.
The whole point of design pattern
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:55:24 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
>>> particular part of our world that you are trying to
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Please trim unnecessary quoted text.
>
> We don't need to see the entire thread of comment/reply/reply-to-reply
> duplicated in *every* email.
s/every/any/
--
\ “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; |
`\ but if you really make th
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:17:33 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Please see my comment at the bottom hint hint :)
Please trim unnecessary quoted text.
We don't need to see the entire thread of comment/reply/reply-to-reply
duplicated in *every* email.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/l
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:34 AM, rusi wrote:
> BTW in "automatic garbage collection" which of the three words is most
> important? Least?
Most important is "garbage". I sure don't want any language I use to
automatically collect non-garbage!!
But in seriousness, the definition of "garbage" is one
On Aug 6, 7:27 pm, lipska the kat wrote:
> You take out the garbage.
> I've got automatic garbage collection
:-)
BTW in "automatic garbage collection" which of the three words is most
important? Least?
Heres another take on nouns (and therefore OO):
http://hilgart.org/enformy/dma-verb.htm
--
On 06/08/12 13:19, rusi wrote:
On Aug 6, 12:46 am, lipska the kat wrote:
On 04/08/12 16:49, Jean Dubois wrote:
I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
with Python.
snip
I suggest this
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.in/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns
Please see my comment at the bottom hint hint :)
On 06/08/2012 16:38, Ramchandra Apte wrote:
Its a docstring - it documents the function/class
Did you know that docstrings can be used for testing - look at the doctest
standard library module!
try:
class A:
def method(self):
'''Sam
Its a docstring - it documents the function/class
Did you know that docstrings can be used for testing - look at the doctest
standard library module!
try:
class A:
def method(self):
'''Sample method
This method does the difficult task X.
Call this method with no arguments.'''#docstring
On 5 aug, 20:28, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 19:04, Jean Dubois wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
> >> (C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python,
On 06/08/12 13:19, rusi wrote:
On Aug 6, 12:46 am, lipska the kat wrote:
On 04/08/12 16:49, Jean Dubois wrote:
I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
with Python.
Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
particular part of our
In article ,
lipska the kat wrote:
> UML works, non technical 'stakeholders' (yuk) can understand it at a
> high level and in my HUMBLE opinion the sequence diagram is the single
> most important piece of documentation in the entire software project
Yup. Sequence diagrams are the most common
On Aug 6, 12:46 am, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 04/08/12 16:49, Jean Dubois wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
> > with Python.
>
> Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
> particular part of
On 06/08/12 09:55, lipska the kat wrote:
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
snip
Well as you seem to be so concerned with terminology I'd have to
disagree with you here. An interface (in computing) has any number of
meanings
On 06/08/12 02:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:12:35 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
Good lord. I'd rather read C++ than UML. And I can't read C++.
UML is under-rated. I certainly don't have any love of the 47 different
flavors of diagram, but the basic idea of having a common gra
On 06/08/12 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate in
computer language. The language you use is (should be) irrel
On 06/08/12 01:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:12:35 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
Good lord. I'd rather read C++ than UML. And I can't read C++.
UML is under-rated. I certainly don't have any love of the 47 different
flavors of diagram, but the basic idea of having a common gra
On 05/08/12 23:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:45:47 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely
popular OOP language was C++ (Smalltalk was earlier, but rather
specialized, whereas C++ started as a preprocessor for C).
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> I suspect), but can't say that I've ever used a "factory function"...
> If you've ever used an ordinary function decorator, you almost certainly
> have.
> If you've every created a closure, you definitely have.
Or anything with a __iter__ method...
--
http://mail.pyth
Dennis Lee Bieber :
> Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely
>popular OOP language was C++ (Smalltalk was earlier, but rather
>specialized, whereas C++ started as a preprocessor for C).
Well, C++ did to C what Simula 67 did to Algol 60, much earlier. Simula
was
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:14:04 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> While I've probably used singletons (usually as sentinels in queues,
I don't know your code, but if I were to take a wild guess, I would say
that apart from None, and True/False, you probably haven't.
NotImplemented and Ellipsis are
On Aug 6, 10:22 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In my not-so-humble opinion, the popularity of Design Patterns has a lot
> to do with the fact that they are so abstract and jargon-ridden that they
> have become a badge of membership into an elite. Shorn of their excessive
> abstractness, they're not
On 06/08/2012 01:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snipped to death]
In my not-so-humble opinion, the popularity of Design Patterns has a lot
to do with the fact that they are so abstract and jargon-ridden that they
have become a badge of membership into an elite. Shorn of their excessive
abstractne
On 2012-08-06 at 00:27:43 +,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I frequently draw diagrams to understand the relationships between my
> classes and the problem I am trying to solve. I almost invariably use one
> type of box and one type of arrowhead. Sometimes if I'm bored I draw
> doodles on the di
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:12:35 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>> Good lord. I'd rather read C++ than UML. And I can't read C++.
>
> UML is under-rated. I certainly don't have any love of the 47 different
> flavors of diagram, but the basic idea of having a common graphical
> language for describing how
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:46:23 +0100, lipska the kat wrote:
>
> Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
> particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate in
> computer language. The language you use is (should be) irrelevant.
That depends on how you defin
On 06/08/2012 00:12, Roy Smith wrote:
In article <501ef904$0$29867$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:45:47 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely
popular OOP language was C++ (Sma
In article <501ef904$0$29867$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:45:47 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
> > Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely
> > popular OOP language was C++ (Smalltalk was earlier, but rather
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:45:47 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> Don't look for Object-Oriented Programming -- since the first widely
> popular OOP language was C++ (Smalltalk was earlier, but rather
> specialized, whereas C++ started as a preprocessor for C).
>
> Rather look for Object-Oriented An
On 05/08/2012 20:46, lipska the kat wrote:
> Design Patterns by Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides
In article ,
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Please no, that's the worst possible book for someone trying to learn
> OOD in Python.
+1 what Mark said. It's certainly the classic patterns book, but most
On 05/08/2012 20:46, lipska the kat wrote:
[snip]
There is a book you could try, it's a bit dry and I read it when I can't
sleep, about 30 mins usually does it :-)
It's called Design Patterns by Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides
ISBN 0-201-63361-2.
They do use C++ code in examples but as they
On 04/08/12 16:49, Jean Dubois wrote:
I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
with Python.
Object Oriented programming is a mindset, a way of looking at that
particular part of our world that you are trying to encapsulate
in computer language. The language yo
I found Mark Lutz's book Learning Python had two or three chapters on object
oriented programming from starting principles to more involved Python object
programming. It helped me immensely.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 05/08/2012 19:43, Ifthikhan Nazeem wrote:
[top posting fixed]
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 05/08/2012 19:04, Jean Dubois wrote:
On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
(C++/Java) objec
I would recommend Bruce Eckel's Thining in Python. Check it out here
http://www.mindview.net/Books/TIPython/
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 19:04, Jean Dubois wrote:
>
>> On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> One reason you may be having diff
In article
<8f1b60a5-0411-4aae-9ee6-0025b493c...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Dubois wrote:
> Can someone here on this list give a trivial example of what object
> oriented programming is, using only Python?
OOP seems to mean different things to different people. What OOP means
to you
On 05/08/2012 19:04, Jean Dubois wrote:
On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
(C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python, in fact
you could work with Python for a long time without really 'do
On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
> One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
> (C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python, in fact
> you could work with Python for a long time without really 'doing it' at all
> (well other than ca
On 5 aug, 02:11, shearich...@gmail.com wrote:
> One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
> (C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python, in fact
> you could work with Python for a long time without really 'doing it' at all
> (well other than ca
One reason you may be having difficulty is that unlike some languages
(C++/Java) object-orientation is not a be all and end all in Python, in fact
you could work with Python for a long time without really 'doing it' at all
(well other than calling methods/properties on existing API's). Having sa
I'm looking for a good introduction to object oriented programming
with Python. I am looking for an introduction which only refers to
Python. I have seen introductions where the authors make comparisons
to other languages such as C++ and Java, but as I don't know these
languages that do
67 matches
Mail list logo
