FYI, Ruby's class model is almost directly copied from Smalltalk, which is the classic object oriented language, and is where the phrase "object oriented" was invented. Therefore there are no grounds to suggest that Ruby somehow does not have "real" classes because they don't look like Java's.
I weren't proposing any form of value with my statement. Just pointing out that on the scale of {run-time..compile-time} object model, Ruby is closer to the run time end.
Comments
Well, Ruby's classes are open. So while they are called classes, they are much more similar to prototypes than, say, Java's classes are.
FYI, Ruby's class model is almost directly copied from Smalltalk, which is the classic object oriented language, and is where the phrase "object oriented" was invented. Therefore there are no grounds to suggest that Ruby somehow does not have "real" classes because they don't look like Java's.
I weren't proposing any form of value with my statement. Just pointing out that on the scale of {run-time..compile-time} object model, Ruby is closer to the run time end.