From: Wilkes Joiner Date: 2001-07-23T12:44:20+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:18318] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python? I consider Smalltalk to be "pure" OO. You have objects and you have messages. You send messages to objects. my 2 cents, Wilkes "Mark Nenadov" wrote in message news:20010722.224020.1626276121.11325@d150-169-166.home.cgocable.net... > In article , "Albert > Wagner" wrote: > > > > What attracted me to Ruby from Python was the fact that it was pure OOP, > > not an addon as in Python. For a language to be fun for me, it must be > > more than just a collection of addon features. Ruby has a design > > integrity that I found lacking in Python. I don't find the differences > > between a pure OOP language and a hybrid language to be "insignificant" > > nor a "minor difference." > > I know I already replied to your last message, but I have one more > question... > > What do you consider a pure OOP language to be? I think no language is > pure OOP.. I think actually every implementation on earth of OOP is not > "pure" persay. Its simply a matter of who has the best OOP support, I > really doubt pure OOP really exists. > > Nevertheless, Python WAS built with OOP in mind - though it isn't pure > "persay" just like every other language on the face of the earth > including Ruby (Perl wasn't built with OOP in mind, but thats a whole 'nother > story, and I am by no means advocating Perl). > > -- > ~Mark Nenadov (author/editor for http://www.coffeecode.com)