question about first class object

[deepak mehta]

hello sir
sir what is first class objects in java programming is it similar declared object or other
please reply me soon it is urgent.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

"First class object" is not a Java language concept; it's a computer science concept, usually only used when you're talking about something that isn't an object, or isn't usually an object. For example, in Java, a method isn't an object; but in some langauges, a method is, indeed, a "first class object."

[Svend Rost]

In connection with EFH's reply: aka. "first class citizens"

[marc weber]

I've been confused by this phrase as well. Is it simply a way of saying that something is "indeed" an object?

For example, if I said, "In Java, an array is a first class object," this would simply mean that Java arrays are, in fact, objects (whereas in other languages they might not be). Is that correct?

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Pretty much, yeah. You can imagine a language which offered "degrees of objecthood", so that something-or-other could be a first-class object, or only have some object-like properties.

[M Beck]

usually a "first-class" thing in a language is a thing you can use the language's own syntactic and semantic structures to manipulate, without having to invoke library code. so Objects are first-class in Java, and so are ints, booleans, doubles, and so forth. but List's, Map's, and Swing Container's are not first-class; they're higher-level constructs built on top of first-class objects.

i suppose one could argue that a thing isn't first-class unless it's possible to create new instances of it at run-time, store them in variables, pass them around, and so on; i'm unsure if there's any widespread agreement on whether or not that's considered a requirement for "first-class" status. if it is required, then methods (functions) could not be considered first-class things in Java. (personally, i would agree with this notion.)

[marc weber]

Interesting. Thanks for the responses!