I consider Smalltalk to be "pure" OO.  You have objects and you have
messages.  You send messages to objects.

my 2 cents,
Wilkes

"Mark Nenadov" <mnenadov / stclairc.on.ca> wrote in message
news:20010722.224020.1626276121.11325 / d150-169-166.home.cgocable.net...
> In article <ExK67.8849$1V1.797914 / e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "Albert
> Wagner" <alwagner / tcac.net> wrote:
>
>
> > What attracted me to Ruby from Python was the fact that it was pure OOP,
> > not an addon as in Python.  For a language to be fun for me, it must be
> > more than just a collection of addon features.  Ruby has a design
> > integrity that I found lacking in Python.  I don't find the differences
> > between a pure OOP language and a hybrid language to be "insignificant"
> > nor a "minor difference."  <snip>
>
> I know I already replied to your last message, but I have one more
> question...
>
> What do you consider a pure OOP language to be? I think no language is
> pure OOP..  I think actually every implementation on earth of OOP is not
> "pure" persay. Its simply a matter of who has the best OOP support, I
> really doubt pure OOP really exists.
>
> Nevertheless, Python WAS built with OOP in mind - though it isn't pure
> "persay" just like every other language on the face of the earth
> including Ruby (Perl wasn't built with OOP in mind, but thats a whole
'nother
> story, and I am by no means advocating Perl).
>
> --
> ~Mark Nenadov (author/editor for http://www.coffeecode.com)