From: Igor Pirnovar Date: 2009-02-11T04:20:19+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby vs Perl performance David Masover wrote: > Robert Klemme wrote: > > I'm not trying to sell Perl's OO as the best thing, or > even "better". But I'm defending it as inherently less > useful than Ruby's. Someone might as easily say that > Ruby's OO is inherently less useful than Java's, because > Java does stricter (static) type-checking. Could you be more wrong and further from the truth? Perl can not be defended as a good OOPL, because it simply is not. It lacks so many things that what you get by using it is redundancy and more work, the things that good OO is trying to minimize if not eliminate. Secondly, what you call lack of type-checking can arguably be considered one of Ruby's big advantages over those languages that have this feature. Strictly, from a pragmatical point of view, it makes much more sense classifying objects based on what they can do rather than to which "aristocracy" they belong. It is well known fact that Ruby is based on "meritocracy" and that, semantically and/or philosophically, is orthogonal to aristocracy! True that OO is all-inclusive and flat with regards to orthogonal principles, but that makes it dramatically distinct from pyramid and geriatric hierarchical structures which are the footprint for all the procedural languages. It takes to much effort in procedural languages to account for that which they lack! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.