On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Eli Green wrote:

> > I do not plan to enter the contest, but interestingly, I learned that
> > Ruby is quite suited for non-OO programming in some areas.
> 
> 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. =)

From that perspective, a procedural program is still OO as the whole
program is a single object instantiated by the operating system. :)

I think OO programming is still procedural within each object. Even
Dave's code (is it a gum wrapper? is it a piece of paper? no, it's
OOman, wearing his underpants on the outside!) is procedural within
a class definition.

This is why I think Ruby is so good to use... it supports procedural
programming just as well as it supports OO programming, so the layout
of the program in OO is very nice and programming the actual code in
the objects is also very nice.

-- 
  spwhite / chariot.net.au