From: Joost Diepenmaat <joost@...>
Date: 2008-09-08T17:53:49+09:00
Subject: Re: idiomatic?

cnb <circularfunc@yahoo.se> writes:

> which is more idiomatic? amazing how similar ruby and python are.
>
> and what does the guy mean with "pure" here:
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4834
> that it is purely OO and consequent?

I'm not him, but luckily I don't have to guess. It's in the article:

"Everything, including primitive data types like strings and integers,
 is represented as an object. Even constants and classes are represented
 as objects. This makes Ruby a pure object-oriented language."


> Would Python be impure in his
> meaning of pure?

I have only minimal knowledge of Python, but IIRC, python is not as
object-oriented as Ruby is.

> def fib(n, a=0, b=1)
>     if n > 0
>         then fib(n-1, a+b, a)
>         else a
>     end
> end

[snip]

What do these have to do with anything?

-- 
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/