was python implemented as a object oriented langage at the beginning ?

[has]

MonkeeSage wrote:
> [...] just because a language doesn't implement OO in the
> exact same way as another doesn't mean it isn't OO -- it just means
> it's a different language.

I've a suspicion that folk who aren't familiar with the Python object
system automatically assume the phrase 'Python types' means
C++/Java-style primitives - which it doesn't. Python's type/class
distinction may be klunky and inelegant, but it's still OO.