> > 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. Supporting and Being OO are very different. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
