Attack a sacred Python Cow

[s0suk3 at gmail.com]

On Jul 25, 3:38 am, cokofreedom at gmail.com wrote:
> > By that logic, C++ is not OO. By that logic, Ruby is not OO. By that
> > logic, I know of only one OO language: Java :)
>
> > The fact that a language doesn't force you to do object-oriented
> > programming doesn't mean that it's not object-oriented. In other
> > words, your words are nonsense.
>
> No, what it means is that it might support OO but doesn't have to, it
> isn't the only way to code.
>

"Support OO but it doesn't have to"? That sounds like saying that in
some Python implementations you'll be able to use OO, but that you
just might bump into a Python distribution where you would type

class MClass:
    pass

at the interpreter and it would give you an syntax error. Is that what
you mean?

> Supporting and Being OO are very different.

I guess at this point it's rather pointless to discuss this because of
the different and deep level of interpretation that we might have on
the words "support" and "be." IMO, the obvious thing to say is that a
language that *supports* OO can also be said to *be* OO. However, it
would seem just ridiculous to me to say the same thing about a
language like, e.g., Perl, where OO is so pathetic. But maybe this is
just a game of words...

I consider Python to *be* OO, anyway.

Sebastian