Why does Python code use len() function instead of a length method?

Strings do have a length method: __len__()

The protocol in Python is to implement this method on objects which have a length and use the built-in len() function, which calls it for you, similar to the way you would implement __iter__() and use the built-in iter() function (or have the method called behind the scenes for you) on objects which are iterable.

See Emulating container types for more information.

Here's a good read on the subject of protocols in Python: Python and the Principle of Least Astonishment

Jim's answer to this question may help; I copy it here. Quoting Guido van Rossum:

First of all, I chose len(x) over x.len() for HCI reasons (def __len__() came much later). There are two intertwined reasons actually, both HCI:

(a) For some operations, prefix notation just reads better than postfix — prefix (and infix!) operations have a long tradition in mathematics which likes notations where the visuals help the mathematician thinking about a problem. Compare the easy with which we rewrite a formula like x*(a+b) into x*a + x*b to the clumsiness of doing the same thing using a raw OO notation.

(b) When I read code that says len(x) I know that it is asking for the length of something. This tells me two things: the result is an integer, and the argument is some kind of container. To the contrary, when I read x.len(), I have to already know that x is some kind of container implementing an interface or inheriting from a class that has a standard len(). Witness the confusion we occasionally have when a class that is not implementing a mapping has a get() or keys() method, or something that isn’t a file has a write() method.

Saying the same thing in another way, I see ‘len‘ as a built-in operation. I’d hate to lose that. /…/

There is a len method:

>>> a = 'a string of some length'
>>> a.__len__()
23
>>> a.__len__
<method-wrapper '__len__' of str object at 0x02005650>

met% python -c 'import this' | grep 'only one'
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

Something missing from the rest of the answers here: the len function checks that the __len__ method returns a non-negative int. The fact that len is a function means that classes cannot override this behaviour to avoid the check. As such, len(obj) gives a level of safety that obj.len() cannot.

Example:

>>> class A:
...     def __len__(self):
...         return 'foo'
...
>>> len(A())
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<pyshell#8>", line 1, in <module>
    len(A())
TypeError: 'str' object cannot be interpreted as an integer
>>> class B:
...     def __len__(self):
...         return -1
... 
>>> len(B())
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<pyshell#13>", line 1, in <module>
    len(B())
ValueError: __len__() should return >= 0

Of course, it is possible to "override" the len function by reassigning it as a global variable, but code which does this is much more obviously suspicious than code which overrides a method in a class.

It doesn't?

>>> "abc".__len__()
3