From: MikkelFJ <mikkelj-anti-spam@...1.dknet.dk>
Date: 2001-07-24T03:47:14+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:18369] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python?


"Avi Bryant" <avi@beta4.com> wrote in message
news:NAM67.8739$YK4.866734@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...

> I'm not saying that being "pure OO" makes a language inherently better (it
> might make it appeal more to my personal aesthetics), or that there aren't

Thanks. Because that was exactly my question to the earlier text.
It is not the pure OO that makes Ruby what it is. I wouldn't even know or
care about what pure OO is. It's like "C++ is not pure OO" to which I'd
answer: "and your point is exactly?". What I like about Ruby is the
consistency. If you get this by making everything an object, fine. But it
really is the consistency that appeals to me. Or "the principle of least
surprise".

Mikkel