From: Anders Bengtsson Date: 2002-11-03T20:53:54+09:00 Subject: Re: Thoughts on Ruby Albert Wagner wrote: > Smalltalk is pure OOP. Ruby is not. In Smalltalk the "operators" are simply > messages to an object. In Ruby "operators" are neither objects nor messages, > but are rather handled as in more conventional languages. I don't know why > Matz only went part way. This part-way-ness is also visible in other > aspects of the language such as "if", "while", etc. In Ruby these things > also are neither object nor message. Whereas in Smalltalk, such constructs > are messages to a Boolean object. If Ruby went all the way on this, like Smalltalk does, then Ruby would almost *be* Smalltalk. The unique about Ruby is that it combines the OO-ness of Smalltalk with a more conventional syntax. I love Smalltalk's syntax, but it did scare a lot of people away. (It can be argued that you could do "if" as messages internally, which is left as an excercise to the reader :-) /Anders -- A n d e r s B e n g t s s o n | ndrsbngtssn@yahoo.se Stockholm, Sweden | _____________________________________________________ Gratis e-mail resten av livet p� www.yahoo.se/mail Busenkelt!