Re: FAQ comp.lang.ruby; correction, Ruby vs Python 2.2

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeff  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     Ruby selectively integrates many good ideas taken from Perl,
>>     Python, Smalltalk, Eiffel, ADA, Clu, and Lisp.  (Ruby is more
>>     fully OO than Python in so far as basic types such as hashes can
>>     be subclassed. See Ruby FAQ 1.4.) Ruby combines these ideas in a
>
>
>Ruby is no longer more OO than Python (at least as pointed out in this
>FAQ), 
>as of Python 2.2.  See this:
>
>http://www.amk.ca/python/2.2/
>
>(items 2 & 3)
>
>Python now lets you subclass basic types, too;  and, has iterators
>& generators, as Ruby does.  There might still be differences, &
>I see from google that this was hashed over in December, 
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=lyu1wqb1fk.fsf%40leia.mandrakesoft.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dpython%2B2%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dcomp.lang.ruby
>
>but, someone should lower the flag, & fix the FAQ. 
>

OK, maybe we do need to change it a bit since you can subclass basic types 
like hashes in Python now, but there are other reasons that some 
might find Ruby more OO than Python.  Perhaps we can change that line of 
the FAQ to something like:

"Many people find Ruby to 'feel' more OO than Python perhaps because 
Python requires that 'self' be declared as the first argument of every 
method so that the interpreter can remember what object that method was 
called on, but YMMV."

As Matz said the term OO can be a matter of interpretation - this 
statement allows room for subjective interpretation, but also gives a 
concrete reason why some people find Ruby to be more OO than Python.

Phil