From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T23:11:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

On Tuesday 10 September 2002 08:33 am, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
<snip>
> 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!
>

Interesting.  When I was looking for an alternative to Smalltalk, I had the 
same first impression of Ruby:  just another procedural language.  I actually 
set it aside for several months based on that first impression.

> 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