• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

is Java fully ObjectOriented

 
Greenhorn
Posts: 8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
is Java fully ObjectOriented if no then why
 
Bartender
Posts: 10336
Hibernate Eclipse IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This gets asked so often. Why do you want to know? Is this an assignment question?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 7729
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mintoo Jaiswal:
is Java fully ObjectOriented if no then why



Let us know your definition of a fully object oriented language, and then we can discuss where and where not Java meets the criteria of that definition.
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It's not completely object oriented - primitives, and it's missing a first-class meta-class (unlike in SmallTalk).

[ October 19, 2005: Message edited by: George Daswani ]
[ October 19, 2005: Message edited by: George Daswani ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1608
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

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 ]
 
author
Posts: 14112
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And to strengthen Tony's point, in *my* definition Java *is* object oriented, because of the feature of polymorphism - although there are languages that are even *more* OO, such as Smalltalk, for a whole bunch of reasons.
 
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic