On Lloyd Zusman, you wrote:
> Quoting Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "[ruby-talk:18311] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python?"
> >
> >     on 01/07/23, Lloyd Zusman <ljz / asfast.com> writes:
> > |I'm virtually certain that Guido designed Python to be O-O from
> > | day one, and so I wouldn't call it a "hybrid" at all.  Perhaps
> > | you're thinking of Perl, whose OOP capabilities are indeed
> > | add-ons (and rather hack-ish, IMNSHO).
> >
> > I know the first release of Python had OO capability, but if he
> > really designed Python to be OO from day one, there's no class-type
> > (or object-instance) separation, which he has to suffer until
> > Python 3000.

One could argue that Java has the same shortcomings in that it has 
primitive types (int, float, etc...) that are not truly objects and 
that other "types", such as String cannot be extended. 

There is a large group of people in the Python community (including 
myself) that wish to integrate types and classes. 

However, it really isn't *that* big of a deal. As it stands, if I wish 
to extend the string type in Python I can simply wrap it into a class 
of its own, call it String, and be done with it.

Additionally, Python manages to work as a hybrid OO-functional 
language, much the same as Ruby... there are obviously differences 
under the hood, but the two languages are more similar than different, 
in my opinion.