Pixel writes:
> matz / netlab.co.jp (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > In message "[ruby-talk:01423] Re: Say hi (bis)"
> >     on 00/02/15, "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker / jump.net> writes:
> > 
> > |> Yes, Perl is a statically typed language, except for references.  The
> > |> only types in Perl are scalar, array, hash, and type glob. :-)
> > |
> > |That last comment wants to be copied to the end of the list of Perl
> > |comparisons at
> > |http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/compar.html
> > 
> > As you wish.
> 
> i don't agree with this. otherwise you could say that ruby has only objects,
> whereas perl has objects *and* array, hash, type globs!

I agree with Conrad and matz nearly wholeheartly. The only thing they
have missed is to mention references. They are represented with
scalars, but they are not scalars in Perl's sense.

A Perl object is simply a data structure (array, scalar, hash) that
happens to remember, in which package it belongs to. This is the
*intentionally* design in Perl! Many Perl lovers moan about this
design too!!!

> 
> i agree the term object for perl is kinda strange, but it permits a lot of
> things... even changing your parent class dynamically! (maybe ruby has it, i
> haven't look much at OO in ruby yet)  i agree it is *not* usefull and *is*
> dangerous

You think "strange"? I think "ugly"! And I stand not alone therewith!
It looks ugly, it behaves ugly and it is ugly to use!

Furthermore I think dynamically changing of the baseclass *may* be
very useful, and is not dangerous if you *know* what you do!

If I fear it, I do not use it. But it is nice if a language provide
such possibility!

\cle

-- 
Clemens Hintze  mailto: c.hintze / gmx.net