From: Jason Roelofs <jameskilton@...>
Date: 2007-05-11T04:39:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Defending Ruby's OOP

------=_Part_132184_19261103.1178825972271
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Tell him to find a more substantial argument. That's the lamest complaint I
think I've ever heard about Ruby or dynamic languages in general.

Or better yet, tell him to design a language that has "if" "unless" etc as
objects and see where that goes. What does having if/unless as objects even
mean?

Jason

On 5/10/07, Lucas Holland <hollandlucas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've got someone here saying that Ruby (and other languages) can't be
> 100% object-oriented because if and unless and so on (keywords) are no
> objects.
>
> How can I defend the claim that Ruby is 100% OOP?
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

------=_Part_132184_19261103.1178825972271--