about Java

[Stephen Douglas]

Is Java completely Object Oriented??

[Fubarable]

Is Java completely Object Oriented??

I would consider this question vague as it all depends upon one's definition of "completely Object Oriented", and so a agree-upon definition first must be stated. As an aside, if you Google similar words, you'll find that this has been debated ad nauseum throughout the forum world.

[_ShivamKapoOr_]

I would consider this question vague as it all depends upon one's definition of "completely Object Oriented"

wats ur version of the definition. I mean ur opinion?

[Fubarable]

wats ur version of the definition. I mean ur opinion?

My opinion is that Java is a powerful, effective, and useful OOP language, with a huge code-base, a large following, and many online resources, and I don't really care if it is a "complete" or "pure" OOP language. In my mind the question is of academic interest only and thus of no interest to me. But again, the question is of interest to others, and so if you look here or a the Sun fora, or at Java Ranch, you'll find similar questions asked several times a month. I suggest anyone interested in this issue study those threads.

[JonJacobs]

>Is Java completely Object Oriented
I'm a newbie (to Java), and I don't want to blow off Stephen's question. Having worked in a number of OO languages, I'd say Java is about as close to "completely" as you will get in a real production oriented, practical language. Just my 1.5 cents worth from someone who may not even know what he's talking about as far as Java is concerned.

[JosAH]

>Is Java completely Object Oriented
I'm a newbie (to Java), and I don't want to blow off Stephen's question. Having worked in a number of OO languages, I'd say Java is about as close to "completely" as you will get in a real production oriented, practical language. Just my 1.5 cents worth from someone who may not even know what he's talking about as far as Java is concerned.

From a more or less theoretical point of view Java is far from a 'complete' object oriented language. The entire OO religion even claims that certain features are OO features while strictly speaking they are not so Java isn't a 'complete' language by far. Here are some issues:

- user defined operator overloading
- multiple inheritance of implementation
- examplars (half baked, the clone() method won't do)
- closures (not by far)
- lambda bindings (not at all)
- primitives (yes and it's a killer)
- default arguments
- 'proper' object construction (not really)
- etc. etc.

kind regards,

Jos

[JonJacobs]

Point Taken. :)
See: >from someone who may not even know what he's talking about as far as Java is concerned.

[JosAH]

Point Taken. :)
See: >from someone who may not even know what he's talking about as far as Java is concerned.

Sorry, I wasn't arguing against your reply in particular; I just clicked the nearest 'quote' button; I apologize for that. My point just is that Java isn't a 'complete' (whatever that may be) OO language.

kind regards,

Jos

[JonJacobs]

>Sorry, I wasn't arguing against your reply in particular
No problem.
I wonder, in your experience have you seen general-purpose, widely-used, production languages (rather than niche or academic/theoretical languages) that come close to complete OO? Just curious.

[JosAH]

I wonder, in your experience have you seen general-purpose, widely-used, production languages (rather than niche or academic/theoretical languages) that come close to complete OO? Just curious.

Not really; imho SmallTalk is an extremely clean and nice language but it isn't complete either (single inheritance of implementation). But a lot of languages are quite usable though ...

kind regards,

Jos