471,596 Members | 1,218 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,596 software developers and data experts.

why are people still using classic classes?

I've noticed that a few ASPN cookbook recipes, which are recent
additions, use classic classes.

I've also noticed classic classes are used in many places in the
standard library.

I've been using new-style classes since Python 2.2, and am suprised
people are still using the classic classes.

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?

Sw.
Jul 18 '05 #1
16 1920
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?


Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes? I realize it's not
much effort to put "(object)" after your class name, but I'm lazy and
don't bother. I don't see how I've been hurt by that.

Obviously, if there was some feature of new style classes I wanted to
use, it would be a different story.
Jul 18 '05 #2
> Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes?


Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear? It seems strange
(and is difficult to explain to my peers) that a language offers two
different ways to define a standard class.

Sw.
Jul 18 '05 #3

"Simon Wittber" <si**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ma**************************************@pyth on.org...
I've noticed that a few ASPN cookbook recipes, which are recent
additions, use classic classes.

I've also noticed classic classes are used in many places in the
standard library.

I've been using new-style classes since Python 2.2, and am suprised
people are still using the classic classes.

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?
Part of it is simply that it's a bit easier: you don't have to
inherit from object.

AFAIK, there's no project to migrate the standard library, and I'm
not at all sure that would be a good idea since existing programs
that asssume classic class behavior would be affected when
classes they inherited from suddenly changed.

Classic classes will go away sometime in the future, currently
planned for the semi-mythical 3.0 release.

John Roth
Sw.


Jul 18 '05 #4
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> writes:
Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?


Yes, new-style classes don't work in older Python installations. Some
Python users prefer not to be on such a frequent upgrade treadmill, so
they continue to use old versions. Therefore, anyone writing Python
code for wide distribution should avoid using new-style classes (and
other new Python features) unless they have a good reason.
Jul 18 '05 #5
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> writes:
Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes?


Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?


It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
new-style class. Try to write code that works either way.

It would be nice if a __future__ directive were added right now (if
it's not there already) that processes all class definitions as
new-style. Otherwise there's no easy way to test for compatibility.
Jul 18 '05 #6
In article <ma**************************************@python.o rg>,
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?


Exceptions, in addition to the other excellent reasons you've been
provided.
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis
Jul 18 '05 #7
On 12 Jan 2005 20:06:39 -0800, Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> writes:
> Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
> incentive is there to switch to new style classes?


Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?


It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
new-style class. Try to write code that works either way.

It would be nice if a __future__ directive were added right now (if
it's not there already) that processes all class definitions as
new-style. Otherwise there's no easy way to test for compatibility.


UIAM, it's not so bad:
class C: pass ... type(C) <type 'classobj'> class D(object): pass ... type(D) <type 'type'> __metaclass__ = type
class E: pass ... type(E) <type 'type'>

So I guess you can put __metaclass__ = type where you would have done the __future__ thing.

If you want to do a special metaclass thing (even using a proper class ;-),
you can override the global __metaclass__
def MC(*a): print a; return type(*a) ... class F:

... __metaclass__ = MC
... pass
...
('F', (), {'__module__': '__main__', '__metaclass__': <function MC at 0x02EE8D4C>})

Regards,
Bengt Richter
Jul 18 '05 #8
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:
I've noticed that a few ASPN cookbook recipes, which are recent
additions, use classic classes.

I've also noticed classic classes are used in many places in the
standard library.

I've been using new-style classes since Python 2.2, and am suprised
people are still using the classic classes.

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?


Probably because there is still no compelling reason to break the old
habits and type those 6 extra characters.

Once a person has a case where the new classes make a difference, I suspect
they catch the new habit and never look back. I haven't crossed that
threshhold yet.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Jul 18 '05 #9
Paul Rubin wrote:
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> writes:
Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes?


Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?


It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
new-style class. Try to write code that works either way.


Unfortunately, if we should follow the recent advice about
always using "super()" in the __init__ method, it's hard
to do what you suggest (though it sounds like good advice)
without resorting to extreme ugliness:
class Classic: .... def __init__(self):
.... super(Classic, self).__init__()
.... c = Classic()

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: super() argument 1 must be type, not classobj

Could classic classes ever be removed without us having manually
to fix all __init__ calls to the superclass?

-Peter
Jul 18 '05 #10
In article <R_********************@powergate.ca>,
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, if we should follow the recent advice about always using
"super()" in the __init__ method, it's hard to do what you suggest
(though it sounds like good advice) without resorting to extreme
ugliness:
class Classic:... def __init__(self):
... super(Classic, self).__init__()
... c = Classic()

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: super() argument 1 must be type, not classobj

Could classic classes ever be removed without us having manually
to fix all __init__ calls to the superclass?


Maybe. If you follow the python-dev thread about "super() considered
harmful", you'll learn that Guido believes super() should only be used
with class hierarchies explicitly designed for the purpose. Given that,
you'd have to do a lot of other changes to support super() and it's less
outrageous.
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis
Jul 18 '05 #11
> Unfortunately, if we should follow the recent advice about
always using "super()" in the __init__ method, it's hard
to do what you suggest (though it sounds like good advice)
without resorting to extreme ugliness:


'import this' also provides some good advice:

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

It seems to me that python is not as simple/clean as it once was. It
has grown warts, for the sake of backwards compatibility. :(

Sw.
Jul 18 '05 #12
In article <ma**************************************@python.o rg>,
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:

'import this' also provides some good advice:

"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

It seems to me that python is not as simple/clean as it once was. It
has grown warts, for the sake of backwards compatibility. :(


That's progress. One of the primary goals for Python 3.0 is to make a
fresh start by removing a lot of the backwards compatibility.
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"19. A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming,
is not worth knowing." --Alan Perlis
Jul 18 '05 #13
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:
I've noticed that a few ASPN cookbook recipes, which are recent
additions, use classic classes.

I've also noticed classic classes are used in many places in the
standard library.

I've been using new-style classes since Python 2.2, and am suprised
people are still using the classic classes.

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?


I'm guessing that the biggest contributor to the continued prevalence
of classic classes is the official Python Tutorial:
http://docs.python.org/tut/node11.ht...00000000000000

I came into Python around the 2.2 timeframe and used the tutorial as
my starting point. I had often read people referring to "classic
classes" but assumed that it was some old pre-2.2 thing that I need
not worry about. For the longest time, I had assumed that I was using
new style classes because I created them exactly as prescribed in the
2.2 tutorial (which still hasn't changed for 2.3 or 2.4).

Now, classic classes are my habit and I see no compelling reason to
put in the effort to change my habits.

Regards,
- Mike


Jul 18 '05 #14
Paul Rubin wrote:
Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes?


Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?


It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
new-style class. Try to write code that works either way.


Ideally, I'd like to have them working like in Delphi, where it doesn't
matter if you declare it as TSomeClass(TObject) or simply TSomeClass, it
is assumed that class is inherited from TObject if no other class is
specified.

--
Jarek Zgoda
http://jpa.berlios.de/ | http://www.zgodowie.org/
Jul 18 '05 #15
Peter Hansen wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> writes:
Is there a reason NOT to use them? If a classic class works fine, what
incentive is there to switch to new style classes?
Perhaps classic classes will eventually disappear?

It just means that the formerly "classic" syntax will define a
new-style class. Try to write code that works either way.

Unfortunately, if we should follow the recent advice about
always using "super()" in the __init__ method, it's hard
to do what you suggest (though it sounds like good advice)
without resorting to extreme ugliness:
>>> class Classic: .... def __init__(self):
.... super(Classic, self).__init__()
.... >>> c = Classic()

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: super() argument 1 must be type, not classobj

Could classic classes ever be removed without us having manually
to fix all __init__ calls to the superclass?

That's not really an issue unless there's a diamond-shaped inheritance
graph and linearisation of the the super classes is required to ensure
that things stay sane. Remembering that the MO for classic classes and
types are rather different, how many cases do you think it will matter?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119
Jul 18 '05 #16
Michael Hobbs wrote:
Simon Wittber <si**********@gmail.com> wrote:
I've noticed that a few ASPN cookbook recipes, which are recent
additions, use classic classes.

I've also noticed classic classes are used in many places in the
standard library.

I've been using new-style classes since Python 2.2, and am suprised
people are still using the classic classes.

Is there a legitimate use for classic classes that I am not aware of?
Is there a project to specifically migrate standard library classes to
new-style classes?

I'm guessing that the biggest contributor to the continued prevalence
of classic classes is the official Python Tutorial:
http://docs.python.org/tut/node11.ht...00000000000000

I came into Python around the 2.2 timeframe and used the tutorial as
my starting point. I had often read people referring to "classic
classes" but assumed that it was some old pre-2.2 thing that I need
not worry about. For the longest time, I had assumed that I was using
new style classes because I created them exactly as prescribed in the
2.2 tutorial (which still hasn't changed for 2.3 or 2.4).

Now, classic classes are my habit and I see no compelling reason to
put in the effort to change my habits.


Since the only effort is the addition of

__meta class__ = type

at the head of your modules you could probably automate this without
breaking too much code.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119
Jul 18 '05 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

5 posts views Thread by Chris S. | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by ShepardBerry | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by Tony Johansson | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by nevets2001uk | last post: by
1 post views Thread by ankit | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Kay Schluehr | last post: by
reply views Thread by XIAOLAOHU | last post: by
reply views Thread by leo001 | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.