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

MonkeeSage MonkeeSage at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 14:47:53 CEST 2006

 Bertrand Ballis wrote:
> I heard a lot of people from the Ruby community claiming that Python, like
> Perl, was a scripting langage that was changed aftewards to be object
> compatible, and that was making it not as good as Ruby, object-oriented
> from the begenning.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey on both counts ("alot of people claiming"
and "python not OO"). The python object system is closer to C++, ruby's
is closer to SmallTalk; but they are both OO (i.e., everything is an
object), and support all the OOP distinctives (i.e., encapsulation,
abstraction, &c) -- 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. Sounds like mabye you heard a few ruby
zealots who didn't know what they were talking about.


More information about the Python-list mailing list