Maybe a bit of example code will help: Notice the difference in the call signatures of foo, class_foo and static_foo:
class A(object):
def foo(self, x):
print(f"executing foo({self}, {x})")
@classmethod
def class_foo(cls, x):
print(f"executing class_foo({cls}, {x})")
@staticmethod
def static_foo(x):
print(f"executing static_foo({x})")
a = A()
Below is the usual way an object instance calls a method. The object instance, a, is implicitly passed as the first argument.
a.foo(1)
# executing foo(<__main__.A object at 0xb7dbef0c>, 1)
With classmethods, the class of the object instance is implicitly passed as the first argument instead of self.
a.class_foo(1)
# executing class_foo(<class '__main__.A'>, 1)
You can also call class_foo using the class. In fact, if you define something to be
a classmethod, it is probably because you intend to call it from the class rather than from a class instance. A.foo(1) would have raised a TypeError, but A.class_foo(1) works just fine:
A.class_foo(1)
# executing class_foo(<class '__main__.A'>, 1)
One use people have found for class methods is to create inheritable alternative constructors.
With staticmethods, neither self (the object instance) nor cls (the class) is implicitly passed as the first argument. They behave like plain functions except that you can call them from an instance or the class:
a.static_foo(1)
# executing static_foo(1)
A.static_foo('hi')
# executing static_foo(hi)
Staticmethods are used to group functions which have some logical connection with a class to the class.
foo is just a function, but when you call a.foo you don't just get the function,
you get a "partially applied" version of the function with the object instance a bound as the first argument to the function. foo expects 2 arguments, while a.foo only expects 1 argument.
a is bound to foo. That is what is meant by the term "bound" below:
print(a.foo)
# <bound method A.foo of <__main__.A object at 0xb7d52f0c>>
With a.class_foo, a is not bound to class_foo, rather the class A is bound to class_foo.
print(a.class_foo)
# <bound method type.class_foo of <class '__main__.A'>>
Here, with a staticmethod, even though it is a method, a.static_foo just returns
a good 'ole function with no arguments bound. static_foo expects 1 argument, and
a.static_foo expects 1 argument too.
print(a.static_foo)
# <function static_foo at 0xb7d479cc>
And of course the same thing happens when you call static_foo with the class A instead.
print(A.static_foo)
# <function static_foo at 0xb7d479cc>
append: Appends object at the end.
x = [1, 2, 3]
x.append([4, 5])
print(x)
gives you: [1, 2, 3, [4, 5]]
extend: Extends list by appending elements from the iterable.
x = [1, 2, 3]
x.extend([4, 5])
print(x)
gives you: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Best Answer
First, the use of Xcode or not has nothing to do with NIB loading (beyond making it more convenient).
As Ole said, you can use IB to manually add the outlet's you need to file's owner or to the custom object instances that you have in the NIB file. By doing so, it will all "just work".
However, this statement is what prompted my relatively similar answer:
Are you trying to write a bit of UI code outside of a .app wrapper? If so, that is a wholly unsupported pattern, very difficult to get correct, and quite likely to break across software updates or major releases (as it has many times in the past).
The best way to solve your problem is to use an Xcode project and build a standard application. The templates are no longer shipped with the dev tools. Just download them separately.
If you need to run it from the command line, you can still do so.