Just read http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/general/different-world-python/?utm_campaign=ibm-enews&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ibmi-jul22-2015?&utm_content=exclusive1-headline

It states that they could have had an officially supported version of Python on that IBM platform much earlier but for this:

> "The second was that everything we read on Python, and all the examples we encountered, led us to believe that it was a completely object oriented (OO) language"

They may have used it earlier had they known then that Python can be written in a procedural style they having no love of Java's OO, but being able to use PHP and access PHP's OO bits.

Looking again on python.org, the examples are not OO, but when you delve down, say to the FAQ - it gives the mistaken impression that OO is the _only_ style of programming supported: https://docs.python.org/2/faq/general.html#what-is-python

Somehow we need to explain that OO is an implementation style, but the language allows code to be written in just as much - or as little, of proceedural/OO/functional styles as the programmer is comfortable with.