Something funny [OT]

[Kaz Kylheku]

A Slashdot article on Ruby came out, and in response I was digging around
some Ruby related materials. From the www.ruby-lang.org site, I found
a link to some slides from a talk given by Matsumoto:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/jaoo2001/

In Slide 14, he shows that object orientation is defined by syntax:

Is OOP Really Useful For Scripting?

// OOP
fi = File::new("sample.dat", "r")
fi.binmode = true
line = fi.readline()
fi.close

// Non-OOP
fi = fopen("sample.dat", "r")
fbinmode(fi, true)
line = freadline(fi)
fclose(fi)

They claim that OOP way provides no usage benefits over the
more traditional way.

So, in other words, it's object oriented if the syntax is
object.method(argument), but not object-oriented if it's
method(object, argument).

[Kenny Tilton]

I am not sure what is meant by the following, but I at least thought
Matsumoto was being portrayed as thinking OO is defined by syntax. Au
contraire, note the "They claim...". In this slide Matsumoto is defining
the naysayers' position, while we discover his position in this slide:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/jaoo2001/mgp00017.html

Not even sure that point needs to be made since M makes such a big deal
about Ruby being pure OO. Did I completely midunderstand the article
below?

kenny
clinisys

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <3C089FA6...@nyc.rr.com>, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>I am not sure what is meant by the following, but I at least thought
>Matsumoto was being portrayed as thinking OO is defined by syntax. Au
>contraire, note the "They claim...". In this slide Matsumoto is defining
>the naysayers' position, while we discover his position in this slide:

If that's the case, he's assigned a pretty weak strawman position to
the naysayers. Odd, all the same.