Brian replies:
> But Gavin, it seems like only last year that you and I agreed on
> your above
> stated sentiments with the variation that the "pure OO" language was
> Smalltalk.  I (and I believe you) started this OO learning curve with
> Smalltalk/V and were better served than if we had gone for C++.

I didn't say that Java was a "pure" OO language, just that it was designed
to be an OO language unlike C which became C++.  Java is close enough that
you'll be able to "get" all the OO concepts.

If it were possible get easy access to classes in Smalltalk, then yes, there
are some advantages in studying a "pure" OO language like Smalltalk (where
even things like literal numbers are "objects" and the way that you execute
a loop ten times is to say something like 10.do<some code>, i.e. you send
the message "do" to the object "10" which knows it should invoke "some code"
ten times).

But its popularity probably means it's more *practical* to learn Java, since
there is so much Java related training material available these days (much
of it free and online).

Another language worth looking at is Ruby, which *is* a pure OO language,
using the very very good book:

   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201710897

which I've recommended before.

> Once you have this under your belt, the next flavour of the MSDN release
> seems to be c##

Ick.

G.