Originally posted by George Daswani:
[QB]It's not completely object oriented - primitives, and it's missing a first-class meta-class (unlike in SmallTalk).
You'll note here that you have received "someone else's" definition of "Object-Oriented". As Barry said, you need to provide the context before an answer can be provided. There is no authoritative definition. In *my* definition, Java is not object-oriented, simply because using it in any way implies a software requirement defect, which is a direct contradiction of what I believe are the objectives of "Object-Oriented" programming languages.
I suspect you're not performing a survey for everyone's definition of "Object-Oriented".
[ October 20, 2005: Message edited by: Tony Morris ]