this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
26 points (93.3% liked)
Learn Programming
1625 readers
1 users here now
Posting Etiquette
-
Ask the main part of your question in the title. This should be concise but informative.
-
Provide everything up front. Don't make people fish for more details in the comments. Provide background information and examples.
-
Be present for follow up questions. Don't ask for help and run away. Stick around to answer questions and provide more details.
-
Ask about the problem you're trying to solve. Don't focus too much on debugging your exact solution, as you may be going down the wrong path. Include as much information as you can about what you ultimately are trying to achieve. See more on this here: https://xyproblem.info/
Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
len(string) passes the object 'string' to a function 'len' that returns its length.
sting.len() (edit: hypothetically if it existed) calls the method 'len' which is an inherent part of any object of string type.
In practice the result is the same, but the latter is the more object-oriented approach.
Follow up question. Are there any other ways I would find the length? Or are methods and functions the only options?
You could get creative and find several inferior, silly, and utterly insane ways of achieving the same result, for example by treating a string as an interable (read: "list" or "array") of its constituent characters, and count the number of characters. This feels very "example (but not exemplary) code on the first pages of a crappy C++ textbook", but hey, it's a way:
Mind you, this is not programming. This is toying around, and perfectly valid in that way, but no-one in a halfway sane state of mind would dare suggest doing it this way with Python if you actually care about the result. :)
Definitely don't want the extra complexity. Guess my question is if there is a third type of statement (function, method, ____) or maybe even more. From other replies it doesn't sound like it.
I would not differentiate needlessly between the terms function and ["dunder", "instance", "module", "class"] method, this isn't practical at the current point in time, and arguably not pythonic. They are all
callables
and behave very similar for all practical purposes, all quacking like a duck.If you want to deep-dive into the intricacies, there's technically a bunch of alternative "method types" with slightly differing calling and argument passing conventions. There are class methods, static methods, class properties, and module-scope functions off the top of my head, all very similar, but particularly suitable under specific circumstances.
If I wanted a
String
utility class, for example, I could have that:In Python I generally find static methods hardly as relevant as in other languages, and tend to create utility modules instead, with plain functions and maybe dataclasses for complex arguments or return values, which can then be imported and called pretty much the same way as a static method, but without the extra organisational class layer. I'd argue that's very much a matter of taste, and how much of a purebred OOP jockey you are, for better or worse.
Class properties are cool, however, you might want to look into that. It's getters/setters on crack, masquerading as their respective property, so that something like this "just works":
Clearly you meant:
Much more readable!
Edit: Damn, doesn't work, was hoping to make something cursed but you can't make an assignment during comprehension. Oh well, maybe Python 3.14!