From: Mike Hamilton <mikehamiltonca@...>
Date: 2007-05-15T04:55:57+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?

I have to wonder what exactly the benefit of having control structures 
as objects would be? The bottom line effectiveness of any language 
relates to what one can accomplish with it and how efficiently said task 
can be accomplished. Under what circumstance would overriding the "if" 
method be beneficial? Not to mention the fact that since Ruby provides 
the ability to override things like operators and more functional 
components (that can be more logically represented as objects), then why 
would the lack of control structure object orientation make Ruby less of 
an OO language? Not to mention the kind of trouble that one could easily 
get into attempting to override control structures.

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