Gordon McMillan wrote:
>
> Ah. I see. Quite simply, you're arguing from First Principles
Exactly.
I think that these principles play an important role in the area
of computer programming, because they put the markers in the
evolution of our thoughts when we're trying to transcript the
real world through formal computer terms. No kidding :-)
So we need to put some limits before loosing completely these
driving markers. No kidding.
> in an area where I have none.
too bad for you <wink>
> I used to, but I found that all systems built from First Principles
> (Eiffel, Booch's methodology...) yielded 3 headed monsters.
Yes. This is the state Python tends to reach, btw. I'd like to avoid
this madness.
Put simply, if we loose the meaning of the notion of a class of objects,
there's no need to have a 'class' keyword, because it would do more harm
than good.
> Personally, I regard (dynamic instance.attribute) as a handy feature
Gordon, I know that it's handy!
> not as a flaw in the object model.
if we still pretend there is one...
--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4