On Monday 20 October 2003 07:08 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Darn -- one more underground attempt to foist adaptation into Python > > foiled by premature discovery... must learn to phrase things less > > overtly, the people around here are too clever!!! > > > :-) > > I'm all for adaptation, I'm just hesitant to adapt it wholeheartedly > because I expect that it will have such a big impact on coding > practices. I want to have a better feel for what that impact is and > whether it is altogether healthy. IOW I'm a bit worried that Wise as usual. I suspect adaptation should enter Python when interfaces or protocols or however we wanna call them do, and I remember your explanations about wanting to see real-world experience with that stuff, because there will be ONE chance to get them into Python "right". > adaptation might become too attractive of a hammer for all sorts of > problems, whether or not there are better-suited solutions. Well, OO has that problem too -- I see people (mostly coming from Java:-) STARTING with designing a class, by reflex, even when a couple of functions are more suitable. It generally doesn't take ALL that much to wean them from such "premature complexity" if they work with some non-OObsessed Pythonistas. Protocol adaptation is "an attractive hammer" much like OO is, without the further issue of there being very popular "protocol adaptation oriented languages" around:-), so I don't think the worry is really justified. I've seen another poster use a similar analogy with generic functions and multimethods (which btw we DO have in pypy as an implementation strategy, see http://codespeak.net/ and browse or download at will), and perhaps that's equally suitable too. Alex
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