The difference between association, aggregation and composition

From New-style and classic classes:

Up to Python 2.1, old-style classes were the only flavour available to the user.

The concept of (old-style) class is unrelated to the concept of type: if x is an instance of an old-style class, then x.__class__ designates the class of x, but type(x) is always <type 'instance'>.

This reflects the fact that all old-style instances, independently of their class, are implemented with a single built-in type, called instance.

New-style classes were introduced in Python 2.2 to unify the concepts of class and type. A new-style class is simply a user-defined type, no more, no less.

If x is an instance of a new-style class, then type(x) is typically the same as x.__class__ (although this is not guaranteed – a new-style class instance is permitted to override the value returned for x.__class__).

The major motivation for introducing new-style classes is to provide a unified object model with a full meta-model.

It also has a number of immediate benefits, like the ability to subclass most built-in types, or the introduction of "descriptors", which enable computed properties.

For compatibility reasons, classes are still old-style by default.

New-style classes are created by specifying another new-style class (i.e. a type) as a parent class, or the "top-level type" object if no other parent is needed.

The behaviour of new-style classes differs from that of old-style classes in a number of important details in addition to what type returns.

Some of these changes are fundamental to the new object model, like the way special methods are invoked. Others are "fixes" that could not be implemented before for compatibility concerns, like the method resolution order in case of multiple inheritance.

Python 3 only has new-style classes.

No matter if you subclass from object or not, classes are new-style in Python 3.

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>