Anders Bengtsson 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 :-)
>  
>

For me Ruby is almost Smalltalk, yes it uses a sintaxis that more 
closely resembles traditional 3G languages, and uses a more restricted 
environment, this and the file orientation, is what makes Ruby more 
suitable for Scripting.

Enric