What is the preferred Python 3.x class definition syntax? [closed]

Question

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.

Closed 8 years ago.

Improve this question

As Is it necessary or useful to inherit from python's object in Python 3.x? and Python class inherits object make clear, it is no longer necessary to inherit from object when defining a class in Python 3.

As a corollary to this which isn't directly addressed by either of the linked questions: should I prefer either style over the other when writing new Python 3 code? Is it better to drop the object base class in the interest of cleaner class definitions, or leave it in in order to (potentially) make future ports to Python 2 easier?

Answer 1

Programming is converting the abstract ideas into a formal form that is later used to produce executable. There is no need to make the process more complex than neccessary. The machines were created to help us. It does not apply in the opposite direction.

In some sense, Python 3 is a new language. Then the question should be: "Should I force myself to use the new language so that it would look the way the old tools/programmers were used to?"

It's time again to read the Zen of Python one by one:

>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

Answer 2

pylint appears to still warn about not using object when defining a class in 3.x, so I also add it, even for 3.x-only code. I write a lot of Python that runs on both 2.x and 3.x; there it's a cinch that you want it.

But you make reasonable arguments for both sides, really. What do you think?