When you are calling a function on an object, you have fallen out of OOP.
This happens in Java, Python, and Perl, but not in Ruby. This is one of
the main aspects of Ruby which keeps it clean and in "pure" OO style.

Also, in some other languages (Java, specifically), OOP is broken in
certain circumstances. Have you ever wondered why it is possible to
instantiate an instance of an interface inside of an inner class in Java,
but nowhere else? This kind of inconsistent behavior is not found in Ruby.

As far as Ruby vs. Python goes, Python is older and has more support here
in America and Europe, but Ruby is fast growing and has a lot going for
it. Smalltalk, while "pure OO" indeed, is somewhat stagnant as a
real-world development language. Perl is kludgy for use in large
applications, but Python seems to have proven itself to be up to a
multitude of tasks. At this point, it seems as if its the choice of the
developer with relation to comfort level and already-available tools and
packages (which, at this point, Python has more of). Hopefully Ruby will
catch up and overtake Python =) 

0100001101000010010000110100011101110101
Tobias DiPasquale
-Solaris Systems Administrator-
Villanova University ECE Dept. (www.ece.vill.edu)
-Applications Engineering Consultant-
CyberSoft, Inc. (www.cybersoft.com)
mailto: anany / ece.vill.edu
0100001101000010010000110100011101110101

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Wilkes Joiner wrote:

> 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)
> 
>