On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:43:17PM +0900, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> I was not taking issue with ideas such as these, but rather, with
> the statement that Python's O-O features are add-ons, which they
> are not.
> 
> I also stated that Python is not a "hybrid", and by this I meant
> that it isn't a non-O-O language to which some O-O constructs
> were later added (such as Perl and C++).  

C++ is called a "hybrid", because it implements both paradigms, 
procedural and object orientated programming.
C++ was from the beginning on designed with OO in mind, and has
very much in common with the first OO language Simula. 
C and C++ are two different languages! C++ is not a newer version of C.


> However, I still consider Python to be an O-O language, since
> I use a less strict definition of "O-O" than many people here
> do.

Of course Python is OO, but for me it is too scriptic, e.g. you
can simply assign instance variables from outside (at least this
was so in 1.5). For me this is bad OO style. Ruby follows here 
Eiffel or Sather, whereas Python follows the C++ tradition.

Regards,

  Michael



-- 
Michael Neumann  ***  eMail uu9r / rz.uni-karlsruhe.de