Java, PHP, C#, heck, even JavaScript/ES[6,7]. I feel like Python has a lot of its own ways of doing things, whereas a more idiomatic approach is imho a better way to go. Why the hell in the world would you call a class constructor as __init__? Pretty much every popular OOP language does it either by naming a constructor the same name as the class name or through some form of a `construct` notation. Why `self` and not `this`? I mean, I know that the language has a very low entry barrier, but wouldn't it make sense to design it in a more traditional way?

    if __name__ == '__main__':
        main()

Code like that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Java, C# and modern PHP have a very similar style that's not at all universal. If you're used to those, Python is odd, but it can get a lot weirder. At least Python has classes.

__init__ is called that because it initializes the object. It could have been called "__construct__", but I think "__init__" is a lot clearer about what it actually does - the object is already created when it enters __init__, __init__ just prepares it.

Calling it "self" instead of "this" is super traditional. Smalltalk did it.

The __name__ == '__main__' pattern is ugly, and I'm not a huge fan of it. You don't always need it, it's just a guard to let you tell whether a script is run directly or imported as a module. The key is that Python only has runtime. A function declaration or class declaration is a fancy variable assignment. The content of the file is executed sequentially.

Python is not especially weird, but it is different from what you're used to. Wrapping your head around it takes a while, like with all languages, but things start to click eventually.

It helps to experiment. The REPL is great for that. If you don't understand why something is the way it is, mess with it until you think you understand its behavior, then mess with it some more.

> whereas a more idiomatic approach is imho a better way to go.

I don't know what you mean by "idiomatic approach". That phrase, I thought, refers to languages that are highly opinionated about using a specific style -- this philosophy is encoded in Python's philosophy:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

> Pretty much every popular OOP language does it either by naming a constructor the same name as the class name or through some form of a `construct` notation

Seems kind of arbitrary to complain about the constructor keyword `__init__` when the constructor word for pre-ES6 JS, C, Perl, Ruby varies between prototype, constructor, __construct(), and new. Not sure how you say Python's use of `__init__` is somehow worse. As for why `self`, no idea, but seems to be a pretty easy convention to figure out.

As for the complaint about the `if __name__ == '__main__':`, to which language are you referring to that has a more self-evident way of encapsulating that functionality?

I'm not talking about highly opinionated languages, but common idioms across OOP languages.

C doesn't have classes. pre-ES6 - agreed, but who writes it? I think Perl is a bad example, it's dying and is one of those highly opinionated guys, with all its `method`, `trusts`, etc.

> As for the complaint about the `if __name__ == '__main__':`, to which language are you referring to that has a more self-evident way of encapsulating that functionality?

My gut tells me that this is an error-prone idiom.

I'm not saying Python is bad, I just don't like it. I'd love to know what are the strongest sides of the language though?