On 25/01/16 15:02, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 08:30:48PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > >> That is the pure OO way; > > Is this the room for an argument? I'd like the full half hour please.
Personally I see OOP as a style thing rather than a language issue. And I do think there is some sort of a "pure" definition in all the object model theory papers that abound on the subject in CS departments around the planet. (But that still leaves a lot of wriggle room due to differences in opinion among the gurus) But like most "pure" approaches it's thoroughly impractical in isolation. As a result no pure OOP language exists because it would be unusable. (Just like with pure FP, another case where cries of purity are rife.) OTOH striving towards purity is no bad thing. There is usually a good reason lurking in the background. Otherwise we'd all still be programming with goto and globals and variable names like A$... But structured programming too has its purists... remember single exit points anyone? (Actually F# does insist on those!) -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
