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

[Bijan Parsia]

<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.

Of course, this ignores prototype based systems (e.g., Self &
NewtonScript), which, some would argue, are *more* oopy than class based
systems.

By *that* measure, Python would be *more* oopy than Ruby ;)

(Of course, it's not clear to me that being unsubclassable makes you not
a class. Think of Javaesque "final" classes, or Dylan's "sealed"
classes.)

Are Ruby's *classes*, themselves, instances of classes (aka
metaclasses)? Like, oh, let's see, *Smalltalk*!

If not, I wouldn't go bragging :)

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