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

[Peter Maas]

Terry Reedy schrieb:

But if the class method syntax were
manditory, there would be class and/or class hierarchy bloat due to the
unlimited number of possible functions-of-a-float and large number of
actual such functions that have been written.
You are right. I'm not an OO purist, I just wanted to convince Davor,
that anti-OO purism can be harmful too. It's good for programmers to
have a choice.
Your Four Steps to Python Object Oriented Programming - vars, lists, dicts,
and finally classes is great.

I'm glad you like it :)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel [phone]
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter Maas]

Davor schrieb:

I browsed docs a bit today, and they also confirm what I have believed -
that OO is totally secondary in Python.
OO is not secondary in Python. It's secondary for you :) And Python
leaves the choice to you.
In fact,
object/classes/metaclasses are nothing but *dictionaries with identity*
in python.
Eliminating "nothing but" makes this a true statement :)

Love this approach. In fact, you can very easily implement
your own *OO model* completely separate of Python's OO model... Now I
actually strongly believe that Python's author has introduced the whole
OO model just to attract and make happy OO population...
I believe that your belief is wrong :) Guido van Rossum has introduced
OO to Python because it's a useful concept.
and you can definitely be more productive using Python's structured
programming than Java/C++ OO programming :-)... and Python is probably
the best example why we should have skipped OO all together..
Sigh. Proceed as you like but be aware that dogmatism - OO as well as
anti-OO is always a poor guide. OO wasn't invented as a marketing buzz
but to support programming styles that emerged in non-OO languages to
control the increasing complexity of programs.
so you get a nice program with separate data structures and functions
that operate on these data structures, with modules as containers for
both (again ideally separated). Very simple to do and maintain no matter
what OO preachers tell you...

The bad thing about OO preachers is not OO but preaching. And you
are preaching, too ;)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel [phone]
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nick Coghlan]

be*******@aol.c om wrote:

Furthermore, if in Python the algorithm for the reverse function
applies to many kinds of objects, it just needs to be coded once,
whereas a reverse method would have to provided for each class that
uses it (perhaps through inheritance).

Indeed, this is why Python not only provides the list.reverse() method to
reverse a list in place, but also provides the reversed() function to reverse
any sequence:

Py> lst = list("ABCDEFGHI J")
Py> lst.reverse()
Py> print "".join(lst )
JIHGFEDCBA
Py> print "".join(reverse d(lst))
ABCDEFGHIJ

Ditto list.sort() and sorted().

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | nc******@email. com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net

[Nick Coghlan]

be*******@aol.c om wrote:

Then why was C++ invented? What you have described can be done in C,
Pascal, and Fortran 90, all of which are generally classified as
procedural programming languages. As Lutz and Ascher say in "Learning
Python", in object-based programming one can pass objects around, use
them in expressions, and call their methods. "To qualify as being truly
object-oriented (OO), though, objects need to also participate in
something called an inheritance hierarchy."

Again, behavioural inheritiance is something which can be done manually via
delegation or function tables.

What a language with OO support adds is special syntax for something that you
could have done anyway - the OO support just makes it easier and clearer (well,
C++ aside).

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | nc******@email. com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net

[Peter Maas]

mi************* **@gmail.com schrieb:

Davor is right: even if
you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that just
do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
penalized by it.
No, because Python does not enforce using advanced concepts. You
can write programs that are as simple as in 1991. A group of developers
always has to find some kind of common style with a chance that some
are penalized. This can happen with every language.
There is not much than can be done at the Python level. But I would
see with interest a Python spinoff geared towards simplicity.

I think this would be useless because advanced concepts exist for
a reason. A simplified spin-off would aquire advanced concepts
over time and would just become a clone of Python.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel [phone]
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0 BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\ n'.decode('base 64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nick Coghlan]

Davor wrote:

data structures
and
functions that operate on these data structures

Eh? What do you think a class is?

Py> data = range(10)
Py> list.extend(dat a, range(5))
Py> list.sort(data)
Py> print data
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

The fact that data.extend(ran ge(5)) and data.sort() are alternative spellings
for the second and third lines doesn't change the fact that a class is just a
data structure grouped with a bunch of functions that operate on that data
structure.

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan | nc******@email. com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net

[michele.simionato]

Peter Maas:

michele.simion [e-mail] schrieb:

Davor is right: even if
you do not want to use it, the stuff is *there* and somebody in your
team will. So definitely there is an audience of programmers that just do not have an use for all the sophistication and actually are
penalized by it. No, because Python does not enforce using advanced concepts. You
can write programs that are as simple as in 1991. A group of developersalways has to find some kind of common style with a chance that some
are penalized. This can happen with every language.
No. In theory C++ could be kept as simple as C but in practice it is
not.
There is not much than can be done at the Python level. But I would
see with interest a Python spinoff geared towards simplicity.

I think this would be useless because advanced concepts exist for
a reason. A simplified spin-off would aquire advanced concepts
over time and would just become a clone of Python.

And then we will need another simplified spinoff ;)
There is always a fight between simplificity and complexity.
Some complexity is not needed, and I am sure even in Python
something could be dropped. But it is difficult to find what can
be removed. Remember that Saint-Exupery quote? Something
like "a work of art is finished when there is nothing left to remove?"
M.S.

[Alex Martelli]

<mi************ ***@gmail.com> wrote:
...

Some complexity is not needed, and I am sure even in Python
something could be dropped. But it is difficult to find what can
be removed. Remember that Saint-Exupery quote? Something
like "a work of art is finished when there is nothing left to remove?"

Saint-Éxupery was an engineer (and a pioneer of flight) and so he was
referring to a designer (and no doubt had in mind those planes...), not
to an artist (not his fault if he's better remembered as a novelist;-).

As for what can be removed from Python, one could start at
<http://www.python.org/peps/pep-3000.html> -- while each of us will find
there some "complexity " one loves and uses often (be it lambda, buffer,
reload, ...), it's a good start.
Alex

[Alex Martelli]

PA <pe************ @gmail.com> wrote:

Yes. But even with the "best" tool and the "best" intents, projects
still fail. In fact, most IT projects are considered failures:

http://www.economist.com/business/Pr...ory_ID=3423238

The main thesis of the article you quote (although it acknowledges that
other think differently) is that better tools (including iterative, NOT
waterfall, development; and, agile programming approaches, more
generally) are the way to mitigate that horrid track record.
Alex

[beliavsky]

mi************* **@gmail.com wrote:

There is not much than can be done at the Python level. But I would see with interest a Python spinoff geared towards simplicity.

I think this would be useless because advanced concepts exist for
a reason. A simplified spin-off would aquire advanced concepts
over time and would just become a clone of Python.

And then we will need another simplified spinoff ;)
There is always a fight between simplificity and complexity.
Some complexity is not needed, and I am sure even in Python
something could be dropped. But it is difficult to find what can
be removed. Remember that Saint-Exupery quote? Something
like "a work of art is finished when there is nothing left to

remove?" M.S.

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
when there is nothing left to take away."

I know this quote because it is the motto of the F programming language
http://www.fortran.com/F/ , a "simplified spinoff" of Fortran 95.