The fact that you have to build your own objects reusing other bricks, and some spit named bless gives a strong impression that OO is bolted on to Perl, and not native.

Impression? maybe. I'm not sure how that matters. Besides, bless({...}, $class); looks just like new class(...) (C++'s syntax) to me.

A Larry has said, OOP was an experiment in how minimalist one could design OO.

True, but this has no bearing on whether objects are native or not.

The syntactical sugar for calling methods doesn't make objects "native".

That's an odd statement. Something which is part of the language's syntax is sugar, and not built-in? Acknowkleding it's part of the syntax makes it builtin!

There's no object type in Perl

Then how come ref says it's an object?

I can't subclass integers or arrays (unless you call the 'tie' mechanism 'subclassing').

You can't do that in C++ or Java either.


In reply to Re^3: Perl fan being tempted with Python by ikegami
in thread Perl fan being tempted with Python by jeyroz

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":