IsPython really O-O?

[Jason Voegele]

<kentsmith at dxsys.com> wrote in message news:<AbkH7.41130$bf1.4968343 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> A Smalltalk guru in our organization looked at Python last weekend (after I
> had made a big scene saying that it may be a solution to some of our
> cross-platform issues) and came away saying that it was no more
> object-oriented than Java.  I sputtered around a bit but could hardly make a
> decent argument, as I'm a mere designer.  We do very large-scale industrial
> work here, all O-O, with object databases (I thought the ZODB business
> looked great).  Is my friend right?  Is Python not "really" appropriate for
> true O-O applications, in the sense that Viz-Age Smalltalk and Eifel and so
> on are???

Unfortunately, everybody has their own opinion on what "is OO", and
what is "pure OO".  Personally, I don't consider Python to be a pure
OO language.  I consider it a hybrid language with support for OO, but
that doesn't mean it's not useful.  I've formulated my own opinion
about what makes a language "Pure OO", which you can read here:

http://www.jvoegele.com/software/langcomp.html

Please note that this is not complete, and that it is not intended to
say language x is better than language y.  I'd appreciate feedback if
I've misrepresented anything, though.

Also note that just because a language is not "pure OO", does not mean
that you cannot create OO applications with it.  Java is not pure OO,
but supports OO well enough to create OO
applications/frameworks/libraries/etc.

Jason Voegele