From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T22:33:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

Ha.. ha.. ha.., very well said, Hal, very well said :)  I knew it! I knew
it!  To me Python smelled like a "pseudo-OO" since the first time I used
it.

Ruby, on the other hand, is the reverse.  It looked like a procedural
language in the beginning when I learned it, but then later it reveals
itself as a pure OO language.  How wonderful it is!

Regards,

Bill
============================================================================
Hal E. Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
>> >  Python was always OO insofar as its implementation of OO can be
>> >  called OO.
>> 
>> Would that this were so.  However, it's not; and no amount of claiming
>> that it was will change history.  In the words of the Python FAQ:

> (snip)

> I agree with you to the extent that I'm able. (I know
> little about Python.)

> I wonder if we could paraphrase the above quote by
> saying, "A horse is a flying animal insofar as its
> implementation of flying can be called flying."  :)

> Hal