> But, can you tell in which version object of "module" type gained all the attributes of their alleged superclass -- "object"?
As someone who's day job is mostly Python, not off the top of my head, but I could probably find out if it was ever relevant to my work (finding information about Python is quite easy, which is one of its social strengths), which it would almost certainly not be, because in normal use of Python modules, it doesn't matter.
> How many facts like this one do you think exist?
Trivia that's irrelevant to most use of the language? Lots. So what? That doesn't make actual use hard.
> I still remember my disappointment, for example, when after second semester of automata theory, we ended up constructing "mini machines" -- short sequences of instructions that could be combined to build bigger programs. And then we went straight to Java. There was no continuity. Nobody cared or even could explain how, if you wanted to build from the first principles could you get Java. The step between "mini machines" and Java was never explained.
I can see why that might, to some tastes, make that course of study intellectually unsatisfying, especially if one both had an obsesssive need to see the whole picture but not the drive to do the obvious work laid out, implicitly, fior the student, but it seems like a non-sequitur when discussing whether or not Python is hard.
As someone who's day job is mostly Python, not off the top of my head, but I could probably find out if it was ever relevant to my work (finding information about Python is quite easy, which is one of its social strengths), which it would almost certainly not be, because in normal use of Python modules, it doesn't matter.
> How many facts like this one do you think exist?
Trivia that's irrelevant to most use of the language? Lots. So what? That doesn't make actual use hard.
> I still remember my disappointment, for example, when after second semester of automata theory, we ended up constructing "mini machines" -- short sequences of instructions that could be combined to build bigger programs. And then we went straight to Java. There was no continuity. Nobody cared or even could explain how, if you wanted to build from the first principles could you get Java. The step between "mini machines" and Java was never explained.
I can see why that might, to some tastes, make that course of study intellectually unsatisfying, especially if one both had an obsesssive need to see the whole picture but not the drive to do the obvious work laid out, implicitly, fior the student, but it seems like a non-sequitur when discussing whether or not Python is hard.