Not fully OO ?

[Aahz]

In article <aa7392e9-908d-441d-a1f5-e75ca47c0da9 at d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Thomas G. Willis <tom.willis at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 5:23=A0am, candide <cand... at free.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Excerpt quoted fromhttp://www.astro.ufl.edu/~warner/prog/python.html:
>>
>> "About Python: Python is a high level scripting language with object
>> oriented features.
>> (...)
>> Python supports OOP and classes to an extent, but is not a full OOP
>> language."
>>
>> Thanks for any comment.
>
>My comment is "Who cares?"
>
>I was always under the impression that if any language truly was "OO"
>it would be smalltalk. And I don't derive any benefit from smalltalk
>at all. I do however derive substantial benefit from other languages
>that "OO zealots" would likely poo poo on including python.

"...some experts might say a C++ program is not object-oriented without
inheritance and virtual functions.  As one of the early Smalltalk
implementors myself, I can say they are full of themselves." --zconcept
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours."  --Richard Bach