Bertrand Ballis wrote:
> I heard a lot of people from the Ruby community claiming that Python, like
> Perl, was a scripting langage that was changed aftewards to be object
> compatible, and that was making it not as good as Ruby, object-oriented
> from the begenning.
Sounds like a bunch of hooey on both counts ("alot of people claiming"
and "python not OO"). The python object system is closer to C++, ruby's
is closer to SmallTalk; but they are both OO (i.e., everything is an
object), and support all the OOP distinctives (i.e., encapsulation,
abstraction, &c) -- just because a language doesn't implement OO in the
exact same way as another doesn't mean it isn't OO -- it just means
it's a different language. Sounds like mabye you heard a few ruby
zealots who didn't know what they were talking about.
Regards,
Jordan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
