Re: Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?

Chris Carlen wrote:
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
"Chris Carlen" <crcarl,,,,dia.gov> wrote:
Form 2: Use Python and PySerial and TkInter or wxWidgets.
Pro: Cross-platform goal will likely be achieved fully. Have a programmer nearby with extensive experience who can help.
Con: Must learn new language and library. Must possibly learn a completely new way of thinking (OOP) not just a new language syntax. This might be difficult.
This is the way to go. - Trust me on this.
When you describe your history, it is almost an exact parallel to mine.
In my case, I have been doing real low level stuff (mostly 8031 assembler)
since 1982 or so. And then I found python in a GSM module (Telit), and
I was intrigued.
I really appreciate your comments on OO - it parallels a lot of what I feel as there is a lot of apparent BS that does not seem to "do anything" at first
sight.
However- for the GUI stuff, there is an easily understood relationship between
the objects and what you see on the screen - so its a great way of getting
into OO - as far as people like you and me will go with it, which is not very
far, as we tend to think in machine instructions...
And for what its worth - you can programme assembler-like python, and it also works.

The best thing to do is just to spend a few days playing with say Tkinter.
I use a reference from the web written by John W Shipman at New Mexico
Tech - it is succinct and clear, and deserves more widespread publicity.

Google for it - I have lost the link, although I still have the pdf file.
[edit]

Thanks for the tip. The next poster provides the link, which I've got bookmarked now.

The more I play with Python, the more I like it. Perhaps I will understand OOP quicker than I thought. What I've learned so far about names binding to objects instead of values stored in memory cells, etc. has been interesting and fascinating.



I'm happy you are proceeding with so little trouble. Without wishing to confuse you, however, I should point out that this aspect of Python has very little to do with its object-orientation. There was a language called Icon, for example, 20 years ago, that used similar semantics but wasn't at all object-oriented.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
--------------- Asciimercial ------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag the Internet
Many services currently offer free registration
----------- Thank You for Reading -------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?
    ... Have a programmer nearby with extensive experience who can help. ... Must possibly learn a completely new way of thinking not just a new language syntax. ... And for what its worth - you can programme assembler-like python, ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
    ... with enforcing that "shouldn't" in the language itself? ... In Python, direct access to pointers is a MUST NOT. ... where you are allowed to mess with the implementation. ... human assembly language programmers? ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Python for Fortran programmers
    ... proposition for Python in the Fortran community", ... compiled language such as Fortran or C++, but I would still prefer to ... greater number of programming errors that are typically detected by a ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Basic inheritance question
    ... used 'this' in C++ and Java. ... but in Python it doesn't. ... language, they would write a lot of ten liners that is changed a LOT ... Add three levels of inheritence and a couple globals and you'll find out ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Is there a "Large Scale Python Software Design" ?
    ... around 20 developers, assuming colocation... ... situation with Python, yet, only with Fortran, C, C++. ... It sure beats "retrofitting" unit tests post facto. ... Jones' estimates for Java's language level; ...
    (comp.lang.python)