Why java is not 100% object oriented programming language?

> Well i guess a purist view about a 100% OOP language

> would be "Everything is an object", whereas in Java

> we can use primitive data types like int,float etc...

> convincing?

I never understood this argument because if you say this then you are also saying that C++ is also not a pure OO language.

All objects eventually boil down to hard DATA and plain ol' data is best represented by its basic type, generally a number of some kind.

To say Java is not a pure OO language because it has primitive data types seems nitpicky.

You can have a String object, which boils down to a collection of characters, each character being a number that maps to its associated Unicode character.

So the underlying data of a String object is essentially numbers, and those numbers are interpreted by the compiler as char's.

Everything boils down to a primitive type of some sort.

maple_shafta at 2007-7-12 20:01:11 >

"Enough is enough ... I have had it with these <expletive deleted> snakes on this <expletive delted> plane." Oh wait wrong line.

This entire question misses the point in my opinion and by extension the statement made by Carnagie Melon is wide of the mark as well. OO is not about language it is not about platform and is the language or platform OO? Object orientation in software development is about us, the developers and how WE think about and approach software development. It is also not a boolean question are you or are you not? It is a scale ranging from the purely procedural to the utterly oop and everywhere in between.

If you want my view of PURE OOP here it is. (If you don't well that's just tough you're going to get it anyway you're welcome to stop reading.) In the truly OOP mindset a software system is not a program. It is an ecosystem in which organisms are born, live, interact with other organisms, spawn new organisms, evolve and die. The expression of this ecosystem is in the bits and bytes of code. I contend that it is not whether the language or platform is OOP that matters. Cells have primative data types, but cells have behavior and a lifecycle as well so are they OOP by my definition of the term yes they are. What matters is how the developer THINKS about the system.

In my opinion if a developer looks to the language or to the platform or to anything external for object orientation then it is a veneer, an artificial thing put on rather than true object orientation. In a very zen way of looking at it, OO comes from within not from the language.

Now all of that said, it is a true statement that some languages and some platforms are more conducive to developing software in this manner. I'm not disagreeing with that in the slightest bit (Java sits on the OOP end of the scale but is not purely OOP not that it really matters). Languages and platforms that allow multiple events to go on simultaneously are more conducive to OO development than linear languages and platforms, but that doesn't mean that the developer cannot build a system that meets my definition of pure OO.

I'm quite certain that lots of you are going to read this and be convinced that I'm off my rocker (which is very possible) but before you discount the thought out of hand do this, find a pond a small one works best and watch it around dusk (The time spent in peaceful reflection alone will be worth the time spent) and think about applying the things that you see in how the organisms in that small environment interact to your software development and see where that leads you from a philosophical standpoint.

Just my 2 krupplenicks on the subject. Your milage may of course vary.

PS.

puckstopper31a at 2007-7-21 22:34:58 >

Being ironic, a pure OO language shouldn't only be entirely object based, it should also provide language primitives to implement the most common design patterns!

If only it was possible to declare:

public listener ActionListener using ActionEvent;

and have all the standard methods be available:

public void addActionListener(ActionListener...);

public void removeActionListener(ActionListener...);

protected void fireActionEvent(ActionEvent...);

PS:

OleVV, ever heard of printf and scanf? You don't even need cin and cout.

Dalzhima at 2007-7-21 22:34:58 >

> > You can hardly do the same in Java

>

> Sure you can. You can write all kinds of procedural

> gobbledygook with Java.

>

> ~

Good grief, yeh. Where I used to work we had a Java API over the top of one of our server products, and that was little more than a bit of 'C' shoehorned through javac. Nasty business

georgemca at 2007-7-21 22:34:58 >

> > This entire question misses the point in my

> opinion

> > and by extension the statement made by Carnagie

> Melon

> > is wide of the mark as well.

>

> I agree. The Carnegie Mellon quote was in my

> cut-n-paste response file in reaction to one of

> Ulrika's lectures about there being a continuum of

> OO-ness. I find it a bit silly to suggest that

> such-and-such a language is 100% OO, as if there were

> languages that were 87.5% OO or 52.673% OO.

>

> ~

*nods like a bobble head doll* It's not a question of how oo is the language but how oo is the implementation of the language and that is and always will be on the shoulders of the developers.

PS.

puckstopper31a at 2007-7-21 22:34:58 >