Yeah, well I tried to look at your code but it made my eyes bleed. Okay, I will go over there and give it an answer.
But you're right, the amount of debate is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the topic.
Which would mean that there will be an infinite amount of debate on this topic.
> wat do u feel, Is java a pure object
> oriented language? then wat is object oriented
> pgming ?
On "purity" as a measure of object-orientedness:
However, this definition is problematic in that it implies that "purity" is a valid concept. Yet, there is no accepted definition of the term "pure OO language". Despite years of discussion and argument on the net, and in other circles, I have never seen anyone present a definition of a "pure OOPL" that met with general agreement by others.
-- Robert Martin, founder, CEO, and president of Object Mentor Inc., software industry leader.
On the value of using "purity" as a measure of a programming language:
I will not go into the discussion about ``purity'' beyond mentioning that I think that a general purpose programming language ought to and can support more than one programming style (``paradigm'').
-- Bjarne Stroustrup, designer and implementer of the C++ programming language, etc.
~
> On "purity" as a measure of
> object-orientedness:
> "If it hasn't been thoroughly cleaned in
> [url=http://www.cillitbang.co.uk/]this[/
> url] it isn't pure."
> Sun's Java Forums April 2007 by me.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Loretta
I wish I'd been in the meeting where they decided that Cillit Bang was a good name for a product
> > I wish I'd been in the meeting where they decided
> that Cillit Bang was a good name for a product
>
> Getting back to Java, what about PerfAnal:
> http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Progra
> mming/perfanal/index.html
PerfAnal? sounds like policeman-shorthand for an indecent assault
> PerfAnal? sounds like policeman-shorthand for an indecent assault
Right Sir; step out of the car, move slowly, put your hands on top of the
car and spread your legs and don't move. Out perfAnal specialist will
now examine you. Thank you for your courtesy Sir!
kind regards,
Jos ;-)
> I have an important question for DrClap.
>
> "DrClap, did you eventually get rid of all those old
> propane cylinders from your barbeque grill?"
Yes, I did. I just have to schlep them over to the city works yard myself and throw them in the bin with all the other rusting propane cylinders.
> > I have an important question for DrClap.
> >
> > "DrClap, did you eventually get rid of all those
> old
> > propane cylinders from your barbeque grill?"
>
> Yes, I did. I just have to schlep them over to the
> city works yard myself and throw them in the bin with
> all the other rusting propane cylinders.
Thank you. I was worried about it. I feel this was an appropriate venue for the query, don't you?
> > wat do u feel, Is java a pure object
> > oriented language? then wat is object oriented
> > pgming ?
>
> On "purity" as a measure of
> object-orientedness:
>
As far as java is concerned, i would say its not pure OOPL in all the sense. can v modify the object on the fly?
I would say even javascript would make it...
> > > wat do u feel, Is java a pure object
> > > oriented language? then wat is object oriented
> > > pgming ?
> >
> > On "purity" as a measure of
> > object-orientedness:
> >
>
> As far as java is concerned, i would say its not pure
> OOPL in all the sense. can v modify the object on
> the fly?
>
> I would say even javascript would make it...
where is it written that meta-programming is an indicator of OO "purity"? are you saying that javascript is more OO than java, even though it doesn't provide a means for encapsulation? interesting
> can v modify the object on the fly?
Of course. But maybe you're using some other definition of "on the fly".
Despite years of discussion and argument on the net, and in other circles, I have never seen anyone present a definition of a "pure OOPL" that met with general agreement by others.
-- Robert Martin, founder, CEO, and president of Object Mentor Inc., software industry leader.
> wat do u feel, Is java a pure object
> oriented language? then wat is object oriented
> pgming ?
If you define "purity" as "degree of objectification", that is how much of a language is expressed as objects then Smalltalk is purer than Java.
In Smaltalk, primitives are objects, it doesn't have methods that don't belong to an object and all control structures are objects.
So Smalltalk is OO purer than Java. The question now is how are you going to act on this information? Did it really matter? Isn't Java as good as before? Are you going to abandon Java for Smalltalk now?