How do you define "object-oriented"?
avi at beta4.com
Sat Apr 27 08:00:10 UTC 2002
On 27 Apr 2002, Cees de Groot wrote:
> Of course, Python is a flexible enough language that you can write your own
> base class library, forget at the whole mess with built-in functions and types
> (except at places in the base class library - compare 'print' with a
> <primitive: print> in Smalltalk if you wish), and have all objects all the
> time. I've been toying over and over with this idea, but never bothered to do
> it (actually it would probably a one or two day job to have the basic numeric
> and collection types in there).
Sure; although if you're chucking the base class library, you could just
use Ruby instead, which is a pretty nice sweet spot between Smalltalk and
Python to begin with.
(Not starting a flamewar, I hope...)
More information about the Squeak-dev