python without OO

[Davor]

Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them? Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? (As you can see I'm completely new to Python and initially
believed it's a nice&simple scripting language before seeing all this
OO stuff that was added in over time)
Thanks,
Davor

[Steven Bethard]

Davor wrote:

Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?

Hmmm... sorta depends on how you define write procedural code... If
you mean, can you write Python code without accessing object attributes
(e.g. lst.sort()), then the answer's probably almost certainly no. If
you mean can you write Python code without ever writing a class, the
answer's probably yes. It'll make some things harder, and it'll
probably make some modules off-limits, but it's doable.

Could you clarify what you mean by "write purely procedural code"?

Steve

[Jarek Zgoda]

Davor wrote:

Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
Sure, but you will got problem with libraries. Some of them are in fact
frameworks and need some subclassing or other OO fluff.
Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? (As you can see I'm completely new to Python and initially
believed it's a nice&simple scripting language before seeing all this
OO stuff that was added in over time)

Icon, the language for OO haters.

May I ask why you do you hate OO so much?

--
Jarek Zgoda
http://jpa.berlios.de/ | http://www.zgodowie.org/

[Thomas Bartkus]

"Davor" <da*****@gmail. com> wrote in message
news:11******** *************@c 13g2000cwb.goog legroups.com...

Is it possible to write purely procedural code in Python, ... Of course!
or the OO
constructs in both language and supporting libraries have got so
embedded that it's impossible to avoid them?
You can always *write your own* purely procedure code.
A tougher problem would be living without the wealth of supporting library
code that is written OO.
Also, is anyone aware of
any scripting language that could be considered as "Python minus OO
stuff"? Anyone aware? Not I!
(As you can see I'm completely new to Python and initially
believed it's a nice&simple scripting language before seeing all this
OO stuff that was added in over time)

Over time ???
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that all that dirty,
rotten OO stuff was incorporated in the language right from the start.
But
If you can live without coding OO, you can do it in Python.

I'm not sure what it is, exactly, you are trying to avoid.
Much "nice&simpl e scripting " simply has no need to create and use objects.
Of course, the entire structure of Python and all of it's built in data
structures are object oriented. But, if you wish to live within the
confines of your own strictly procedural code, I don't think you need to
deal with the issue.

On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python at
all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS batch
files for Windows. Both are "nice&simpl e" scripting languages free of
object oriented contamination.

Why would you use an object oriented language if you don't want to?
Thomas Bartkus

[Davor]

Thanks,

I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
"simple procedural" stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that will be convincing me that his 50 layers inheritance hierarchy is
good since it exists in some weird pattern that he saw somewhere on
some Java design patterns discussion board :-) and other "proper" OO
design issues... Once I opted for C++ in a very small project and
believed everyone will stick with C subset + better type checking
offered through C++ - but I simply could not manage to keep them off
using OO stuff which was just making program more complicated than it
should have been. (note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-)), so I
prefer preemptively dealing with issue of everyone showing off their OO
design skills)

Davor

[Davor]

> On the other hand, this does beggar for a reason to bother with Python at

all. It seems you could be happy doing BASH scripts for Linux or DOS batch
files for Windows. Both are "nice&simpl e" scripting languages free of
object oriented contamination.

not really, what I need that Python has and bash&dos don't is:

1. portability (interpreter runs quite a bit architectures)
2. good basic library (already there)
3. modules for structuring the application (objects unnecessary)
4. high-level data structures (dictionaries & lists)
5. no strong static type checking
6. very nice syntax

so initially I was hoping this is all what Python is about, but when I
started looking into it it has a huge amount of additional (mainly OO)
stuff which makes it in my view quite bloated now... anyhow, I guess
I'll have to constrain what can be included in the code through
different policies rather than language limitations...
Thanks
Davor

[M.E.Farmer]

Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
Davor wrote:

(note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-)) Don't worry we didn't get confused, it was quite clear ;)
Mostly you are just so off base I just say go *READ* and write more
Python, look at the standard library.
You will only see one or two levels of inheritance as the norm and it
is not that difficult.
Also you are telling me you don't have an OO problem, you have a
problem with your managment and communication skills. so I prefer preemptively dealing with issue of everyone showing off their OO design skills)

Work on that micro-management just a little bit more, that gets the
code flowing ;)
hth,
M.E.Farmer

[Davor]

M.E.Farmer wrote:

Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.
that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language - actually most python scripts that I have seen do
not even use OO which is quite understandable (same with perl, php,..)
and I'm not even sure why all these languages have incorporated OO at all...

(note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-))

Don't worry we didn't get confused, it was quite clear ;)

:-)
Also you are telling me you don't have an OO problem, you have a
problem with your managment and communication skills.

yeah, it's really tough telling them to write code so I can understand
it without having to know about all these patterns of theirs.

Davor

[Michael Spencer]

Davor wrote:

Thanks,

I do not hate OO - I just do not need it for the project size I'm
dealing with - and the project will eventually become open-source and
have additional developers - so I would prefer that we all stick to
"simple procedural" stuff rather than having to deal with a developer
that will be convincing me that his 50 layers inheritance hierarchy is
good since it exists in some weird pattern that he saw somewhere on
some Java design patterns discussion board :-) and other "proper" OO
design issues... Once I opted for C++ in a very small project and
believed everyone will stick with C subset + better type checking
offered through C++ - but I simply could not manage to keep them off
using OO stuff which was just making program more complicated than it
should have been. (note, I am not an experienced developer, nor the
others I'll be working with (even though some think they are:-)), so I
prefer preemptively dealing with issue of everyone showing off their OO
design skills)

Davor

Perhaps pylint (http://www.logilab.org/projects/pylint) or its ilk can help you
enforce a coding style

Michael

[richard]

Davor wrote:

M.E.Farmer wrote:

Wrap your head around Python, don't wrap the Python around your head!
This is NOT Java, or C++ or C , it IS Python.

that's interesting hypothesis that behavior will vary due to the use of
different language - actually most python scripts that I have seen do
not even use OO which is quite understandable (same with perl, php,..)
and I'm not even sure why all these languages have incorporated OO at
all...

Of course, *all* Python programs (whether you call them scripts or
otherwise) are using objects. Strings, numbers, files, lists,
dictionaries ... they're all objects. You *can't* write a Python program
without objects, but you can do so without a single "class" declaration.

The point that M.E.Farmer was trying to make is that you should not judge OO
by Java or C++. Those languages make OO a burden, with on the one hand
excessive requirements to subclass, and on the othe hand ... well, C++ is
just a burden all round really :)
Richard