nah, I’m never complaining about
selfin Python after having tried thethisandthatnonsense in JS.oh, you’re using a named function instead of an arrow fn? Guess what,
thisis not what it used to be anymore.Oh, you assigned a method to a variable before calling it? Congratulations,
thisis nowundefined.Yes. There’s no telling what
thisis.thiscould be anything. We tried to keep track ofthis, but no one knows whenthiswill change.I used to be with
this, but then they changed whatthiswas.Now what I’m with isn’t
this, and what’sthisseems weird and scary to me.This’ll happen to you!
Yeah totally agree.
As a non-programmer who’s occasionally dabbled with wxPython, I’ve entangled myself with self.parent.parent and their childs/siblings more than once. At that stage I know my project is done.
Explicit vs implicit. Ive always liked it being explicit like that. It’s better than magic keywords in say ruby.
Personally the “spaces are code” gets on my nerves for the same reason. It’s implicit to the language so you just have to remember.
Am I not YAMLy enough for your YAML club?
Heh yeah yaml is another one.
Break convention
` class foo: def init(cunt, bar): cunt.bar=True
`
Kinda’ looks like how a psychotic break feels:-?
Write a new method, make sure to reference self first. Write a new method, make sure to reference self first. Call the method, make sure to reference self first.
Yeah, I can see it.
You don’t reference self when calling a method, what on earth are you talking about? You start with the instance when calling the method, like most/all other OOP languages.
Also there are benefits with the explicit self/this to access instance properties. In C++ you need to make sure all class properties/members have a naming scheme that does not conflict with potential parameter names or other names of other variables.
that’s because anyone who develops oop in Python is mentally ill.
Python is a scripting language, not to be confused with an actual programming language. Like everything else in development over the last decade, newbs are just shoehorning whatever is hot into the language because nobody is stopping them.
What 2003 forum thread did this comment crawl out of?
oop hasn’t been “hot” for 20 years.
Might not be hot, but it is sticky.
that’s because anyone who develops oop in Python is mentally ill.
Hard disagree there. I would argue that most “multi-paradigm” languages converge on the same features, given enough time to iterate. It’s not necessarily about hot-sauce. I honestly think its about utility and meeting your userbase where their heads are.
I honestly think its about utility and meeting your userbase where their heads are.
then the Python userbase must have their heads shoved up their ass.
You’re right in that OOP feels very shoehorned in with Python. But not every project has a Linus Torvalds to publicly humiliate horrible ideas and implementations.
In what way does OOP feel shoehorned in with Python? I ask since that is not my own impression of the language.
Would you also be willing to share what language(s) you feel do(es) OOP without it being shoehorned in?
Yeah, some weird accusations. Python has had classes since its inception (1.0).
Also the image in the post makes no sense. It shows multiple (Spidey) instances all pointing to each other which is not how self works. self is just a parameter that may contain different instances depending how it was called. This is also true for any other parameters in any function, each time a function is called it may have a different instance.
I was looking to see if there are equivalents to Java’s private and protected members, and it looks like Python’s answer to that is just throw one or two underscores in front of things to do that. And it doesn’t really do anything, more of just a naming convention. To me that feels like a basic OO structure that is shoehorned into Python.
A single underscore is just a naming convention, but double underscores triggers automatic name-mangling of the variable in question:
$ cat test.py class foo: def __init__(self, x): self.__x = x f = foo(1) f.__x $ python3 test.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/d/test.py", line 6, in <module> f.__x AttributeError: 'foo' object has no attribute '__x'However, much like private/protected variables in java, this is pretty trivial to circumvent if you want.
But I don’t believe that you can argue that access modifiers are required for OO not to be shoehorned into a language, not when influential OO languages like Smalltalk didn’t have this feature either. Java just happens to be closer to C++, where public/private/protected is much more rigidly enforced than either Java or Python
