Thread: What's your favourite language?

Originally Posted by dsr

What's wrong with object.method() being a synonym of Class.function(object)?

I don't like it, because it turns encapsulation on its head. Encapsulated methods become special-case static methods instead of just encapsulated methods. It doesn't make sense. What's wrong with "encapsulated except where static"?

Also, since Python is interpreted, everything needs to be written "in-order"... I'm used to sticking anything everywhere. I like writing the main functions of a class before the auxiliary ones, for instance.

Originally Posted by Identity X

I don't like it, because it turns encapsulation on its head. Encapsulated methods become special-case static methods instead of just encapsulated methods. It doesn't make sense. What's wrong with "encapsulated except where static"?

Python's double underscore name mangling is enough in the way of encapsulation for me. Unless I am misunderstanding you, since the programmers still call methods in Python by the usual object.method() syntax, the only oddity with which one could fine fault is the explicit "self" parameter. See my last post for more on this.

Originally Posted by Identity X

Also, since Python is interpreted, everything needs to be written "in-order"... I'm used to sticking anything everywhere. I like writing the main functions of a class before the auxiliary ones, for instance.

Actually, the very opposite is true. Unlike some static-typed languages that require either "in-order" definitions or prototypes (e.g. C), Python allows you to define functions and methods in whatever order makes the most sense to you.