From: Tim Hammerquist <tim@...>
Date: 2002-02-20T18:18:38+09:00
Subject: Re: FAQ comp.lang.ruby; correction, Ruby vs Python 2.2

Jeff <jdonner0@earthlink.net> graced us by uttering:
> Python now lets you subclass basic types, too;

Python's type/class unification is a great improvement over it's
previous methods, but it's still just a nominal "unification".  The
original built-in types/classes are not in themselves dynamic of
expandable, even if subclasses are.  (Sorry Guido; but you surely know
this.)

> and, has iterators & generators, as Ruby does.

I've used Python's iterators. They're a good cruft-job, but cruft
nonetheless.

I fail to find this a convincing argument for the equivalence of Python
and Ruby, much less so for the equivalent OO-ness of the two.

> but, someone should lower the flag, & fix the FAQ. 

I disagree.  By all means, modify it to include Python's type/class
advances, but the statement that Ruby is "more fully OO" should remain
intact.

Sincerely,
Tim Hammerquist
-- 
/earth: file system full.