"Wilkes Joiner" <boognish23 / yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<g_M67.7346$t3.1464745 / newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>...
> 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)


What's up with all this talk about purity?  Maybe you guys should be
posting to alt.virgins.  I was under the impression that practicality
outweighs purity, since, as I'm sure you all know on a conscious and
subconscious level, computer languages have more to do with solving
problems than thay do with virgins.  Right?

Krystian