Re: Python discussion, anybody?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas O'Dowd <tom@example.com> writes:

    Thomas> everything had to be declared first, then python could
    Thomas> throw out an error when it hit the undeclared variable
    Thomas> typo memmber.

Ah, is that what he was complaining about.  I thought he was having
namespace confusion, since the example involved both class-scope and
global-scope uses of the identifier.

As a long-time Lisp programmer, I much prefer dynamic typing, as it
allows you to create arbitrary properties for objects dynamically.  In
Python you get that feature without the syntactic annoyance of `(put
'object 'key 'value)' and `(get 'object 'key)'.

This is obviously a matter of personal preference.  If his usages are
such that he doesn't need dynamic properties, strong typing may be a
great convenience for spell-checking.  If your programming style is
object-oriented and involves a lot of dynamic instance-specific
properties (which is true for many Python advocates, Guido even put in
lambda forms to define anonymous functions), then strong typing is a
massive PITA that just needs to be subverted.


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."