Re: [WSG] JavaScript clarification please

[Anthony Ziebell]

You seem to have missed my point and many references too. Try reading some of the references and come back with an informed opinion, not just nit-picking at analogies I am providing to attempt to help you understand (as I gather you would not be reading any references I have provided, which conflict with your argument anyway). Thanks, Anthony. Breton Slivka wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Anthony Ziebell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, Lets all just agree then, that the first insulin is simply the best, so no further development in this area is needed. I am going to link you to two more resources. If you feel that the first ever implementation of object should mandate all others (such as the first insulins), then I welcome you to submit edits to this article. You seem to have missed my point. My point was, if we are to count arbitrary deviations from smalltalk as discounting a language from being oop (such as a lack of classical inheritence), then the only OOP language is smalltalk. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, _javascript_ must be OOP. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************