On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM, elise huard <huard.elise / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Mike Stephens <rubfor / recitel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess. This top-level approach would only take you so far .
>>
>> Prior to the advent of OO, we used procedural styles, and we still had
>> to run 500-seat call centres, book planes, run multinational banks,
>> invent new drugs etc.

but before that, my main point was that trying to use Ruby
(specifically) in a procedural way would be silly, unless you can
prove otherwise.