* Uwe Schnitker <schnitkerAffenschaukel / sigma-c.com> [0717 09:17]:

> So why do you call C++ "less OO" just because it supports 
> procedural programming and programming with concrete 
> non-polymorphic classes >> in addition to << programming
> with polymorphic objects?

First off, I'd admit I'm not a C++ programmer at anything other
than a passing aquaintence level.

I understood C++ is 'less OO' in the same way Perl is; it's a fair
amount of work to use the OO features, so I'd expect programmers to 
take an easier way out or cut corners. I certainly would, which is the
main reason I re-eBayed my C++ books last month - being cursed with a
finite lifetime, life is too short for this stuff  :)

With Ruby I found OO to be so straightforward to use that even a
30 line script can benefit from OO design off the bat, without
doubling or tripling the development time.

IMO the reason a lot of coders see OOP as hype is because they are
exposed to half-assed implementations like Perls or PHPs, so they
get into a mindset that it involves a lot of boilerplate - you
don't see Java one-liners anywhere, do you?  

-- 
Menu, n.:
	A list of dishes which the restaurant has just run out of.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns