From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: 2004-07-03T03:17:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Why I don't use Ruby.

il Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:56:21 +0900, Ben Giddings
<bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> ha scritto::


>Whoa, depends on how you define 'pure-oo'.  Maybe they are OO under the 
>covers, but the interface (which has remained backwards-compatible) sure 
>isn't very OO.

I define it as: everything is an object

>Take for example, 'len', it's not a property of Strings or Arrays, it's 
>a function you apply to them to get their length.  Same goes for 'map', 
>it's not a property of lists or arrays, it's just a function.

actually, len is just a commodity, the length of an array is actually:

>>> ary=[1,2,3,4]
>>> ary.__len__()
4

>Maybe behind the scenes Integers are now objects, but that sure doesn't 
>make the language seem very 'pure-oo'.

not behind the scenes:
>>> class MyInt(int): pass

I'm not really a python guru, but for the definition of 'pure oo' as
'everything that gets assigned to a variable name is an object', it
is.

 If your definition is based on type(x) being less pure then x.class..
well, then it's not OO.
 (obviously x.__class__() works fine in python ;)