You're right in that OOP feels very shoehorned in with Python. But not every project has a Linus Torvalds to publicly humiliate horrible ideas and implementations.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

In what way does OOP feel shoehorned in with Python? I ask since that is not my own impression of the language.

Would you also be willing to share what language(s) you feel do(es) OOP without it being shoehorned in?

[–] albbi@piefed.ca 1 points 9 hours ago

I was looking to see if there are equivalents to Java's private and protected members, and it looks like Python's answer to that is just throw one or two underscores in front of things to do that. And it doesn't really do anything, more of just a naming convention. To me that feels like a basic OO structure that is shoehorned into Python.

[–] amos@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 days ago

Yeah, some weird accusations. Python has had classes since its inception (1.0).

Also the image in the post makes no sense. It shows multiple (Spidey) instances all pointing to each other which is not how self works. self is just a parameter that may contain different instances depending how it was called. This is also true for any other parameters in any function, each time a function is called it may have a different instance.