From: Lloyd Linklater <lloyd@2live4.com>
Date: 2007-05-12T23:29:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Defending Ruby's OOP

Lucas Holland 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?

Yeah, it is just silly.  If he has his own definition of 100% OOP, why 
not make each character am object?  What about font size?  I agree with 
the earlier post, argue with smarter people.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.