gabriele renzi wrote:
> il Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:56:21 +0900, Ben Giddings
> <bg-rubytalk / infofiend.com> ha scritto::
> 
>>Whoa, depends on how you define 'pure-oo'.  Maybe they are OO under the 
>>covers, but the interface (which has remained backwards-compatible) sure 
>>isn't very OO.
> 
> I define it as: everything is an object

Define 'everything' then :-) Not even everything (like control 
structures or the program itself) is an object in Ruby.

Btw, there are other definitions, e.g. we communicate with an object by 
passing messages (e.g. invoking its methods). An object in Python, IIRC, 
is more like a bag of attributes which you can (or tend to) access 
directly. I view Ruby much more pure-OO than Python in this regard.

-- 
dave