Is Python an object based programming langauge?

[Tim Hammerquist]

Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> graced us by uttering:
> Tim Hammerquist <tim at vegeta.ath.cx> wrote:
>> According to Smalltalk enthusiasts, definitely not.
> 
> AFAICT, if you ask a smalltalker, he'll tell you python is not OO because 
> it's not more like smalltalk.

That's coincidental, actually. That's simply because Smalltalk _has_ the
qualities he/she uses to classify object oriented langauges.

> On the other hand, if you ask a C++ hacker, he'll tell you python is
> not OO because it's not more like C++.  Similarly for Java, etc.

I personally eschew Java and C++ because in my experience, they're more
trouble than they're worth.

> Everybody seems to have their own definition, usually based on
> whatever they learned first.

Good observations. I agree.

> I've got one guy I work with you insists python isn't OO for exactly one 
> reason: because it doesn't implement private variables.

What does he think of Ruby?

Tim Hammerquist
-- 
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.
    -- Lily Tomlin