Ruby -- A better OO Perl than Perl? Python 3000 features available now?

[david_ullrich at my-deja.com]

In article <1ebvwau.af3wl21301xdcN%bparsia at email.unc.edu>,
  bparsia at email.unc.edu (Bijan Parsia) wrote:
> <david_ullrich at my-deja.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >     I don't know anything about Ruby, but a language could certainly
> > be more fully OO than Python. For example in Python although
everything
> > is an object not every type is a class (you can't subclass list, for
> > example).
> [snip]
>
> Of course, this presumes that the more "class" you have the more fully
> "OOPY" you are. *Really* ools have *class*. Yuk yuk.
[...]

    I'm not qualified to argue about what's more OOP than what -
with any luck I'd decline to do so even if I were so qualified.
Was just commenting on the preceding 'I thought everything in
Python was an object and that Python was designed from the
ground up to be object oriented...how can you be more "fully"
OO?' - the facts that Python was [etc] do not imply that it's
impossible to be more fully OO than Python.

    Whatever that means.

DU

>
> --
> Bijan Parsia
> http://monkeyfist.com/
> ...among many things.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.