26
Opinions: Do you feel Python is a more object-oriented or procedural language? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by to c/python@programming.dev
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is a question for people more experienced with Python, but everybody feel free to answer if you feel like you can provide something decent to the discussion.

Also feel free to explain why you feel that way and your experiences with Python and the paradigms.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The question is invalid!

Write the code that makes sense for your problem. This is not religion where choosing the wrong thing can land you in hell for eternity or whatever it is your gods will do if they don't like you. You should be mixing OO, functional, and procedural code all the time as each does some things well and some things poorly. Of course don't create a mess by the mix, but good code has a need for all 3 styles. (IIRC there are more styles the good code needs, but I can't think of what it might be at the moment)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I love the almost spiritual nature of software development. It sounds crazy but the best devs I have ever worked with all immediately understood this perspective or had their own version of it.

    The way we have these three categories of programming styles… off in one rhetorical direction, we see millions of little threads, innumerable individual languages, syntaxes, little styles… in the other direction? A monadic unity. All three categories are programming languages, which are just… forms of communication… which is just, well, shifting values of information. And that? Information? Formally it’s the potential for data but philosophically it is the noumena itself. The information world and the real world are one in the same.

    I think people who are under the false impression that “everything has already been discovered” are so unfortunately blind to the beautiful world we have been endowed to discover, especially in contemporary times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Could you elaborate on how information is the noumena?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    yeah that’s definitely the boldest claim made in the OP comment. was surprised to see it hang out unchallenged for so long.

    there’s been a growing trend to assign ontological primacy to information over mass/energy/space/etc. it’s a hot point for debate in computer science and physics research because, as my Kantian diction was kind of intended to imply: we can’t really empirically verify any ontological theories we have so we end up arguing over things that seem semantic from the outside in.

    that means that, at least for now, “information is the noumena” is a matter of opinion. i just have strong, albeit potentially misplaced feelings - that mass, energy, and information are all different expressions of the same substrate that builds reality itself and that there is an undiscovered mechanic governing all three in a self-consistent manner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Computers only have one language and one data type. Everything else is a construct, which we can build up into a beautiful thing: a mathematics that exists in the real world instead of the pure realm of axioms and symbols, and because it's purely our own creation and not the universe's, we know it from the fundamentals and don't have to struggle with all the unknowns of physics, which presents us with very different, more mysterious mathematical objects to interact with instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent