Albert Wagner wrote:

> Smalltalk is pure OOP.  Ruby is not.  In Smalltalk the "operators" are simply 
> messages to an object.  In Ruby "operators" are neither objects nor messages, 
> but are rather handled as in more conventional languages.  I don't know why 
> Matz only went part way.   This part-way-ness is also visible in other 
> aspects of the language such as "if", "while", etc.  In Ruby these things 
> also are neither object nor message. Whereas in Smalltalk, such constructs 
> are messages to a Boolean object. 

If Ruby went all the way on this, like Smalltalk does, then Ruby would
almost *be* Smalltalk.
The unique about Ruby is that it combines the OO-ness of Smalltalk with
a more conventional syntax. I love Smalltalk's syntax, but it did scare
a lot of people away.

(It can be argued that you could do "if" as messages internally, which
is left as an excercise to the reader :-)

/Anders

-- 

A n d e r s  B e n g t s s o n  |  ndrsbngtssn / yahoo.se
Stockholm, Sweden               |

_____________________________________________________
Gratis e-mail resten av livet p? www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!