Haha, I can't believe I'm actually standing up for Java. This is ridiculous.

So, what you're saying is that there _are_ objects to represent
classes (and perform certain operations with the class), but they
aren't powerful enough to _really_ call class objects. I'm right there
with you on that one. But plenty of Java guys will jump at the
statement 'classes aren't objects in Java'. It's a matter of what you
are willing to call a class object.

It feels a lot like the argument that Ruby doesn't have first order
functions. Well, we do, but not exactly like you'd expect (see
discussion today on the list about it). Not analogous, but it's all
about where the draw the line about what's what.

And our ruby classes have limitations too, which might lead some
smalltalkers to declare 'Ruby doesn't _really_ have class objects'.
After all, we can't serialize our classes and send them somewhere else
for use in instantiating objects (without serious hackery).

So, yea, I'm right there with you after all.

Dan