from MikkelFJ on 2001-08-04 at 05:27:15:
> >       Try to think of imaginative ways to write unattractive Ruby.
> >       Perhaps there's a language or two out there whose style you
> >       could imitate?  Or ways to circumvent object-oriented design?
> >       Or... you decide!
> 
> I do not plan to enter the contest, but interestingly, I learned that Ruby
> is quite suited for non-OO programming in some areas. My point is, that we
> should not forget that Rubys power is not necessarily restricted to
> OO-design. The above sentence is of course only suggestions, but I think it
> would be the wrong message to send, that only OO-design is good Ruby design.
> 
> For example to represent the infrastructure of an adventure game, you have
> the concept of a location and the concept of possible ways to move between
> locations, and items that can be at locations.
> Instead of the approach below, I could also have created location objects,
> item objects etc. But in this case everything is handled using strings in a
> much cleaner way than an OO approach would have given. The approach is also
> extensible in that You can easily add new properties to a location or an
> item without having to update a number of objects.
> 
> Mikkel
> 

<snip>

I fail to see how this is not OO. It's a design decision of where to separate
the objects ... you're still using objects. =)