From: krystianson@... (Krystian) Date: 2001-07-24T09:29:18+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:18398] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python? "Wilkes Joiner" wrote in message news:... > 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) What's up with all this talk about purity? Maybe you guys should be posting to alt.virgins. I was under the impression that practicality outweighs purity, since, as I'm sure you all know on a conscious and subconscious level, computer languages have more to do with solving problems than thay do with virgins. Right? Krystian