Printable View
see dear friends ,
actually java is not 100%pure oo language because of Primitive data types
and we can use the Wrapper class in java to use Primitive data types
so as compare with the C++ how u can say that " C++ is object oriented pure and Java is not "
please maintain some example so ican clear my dought?
They both have primitives so neither are 100% "pure" OO, and that straight C code can be compiled within C++ (at least under certain circumstances) is a pretty good indicator that Java is more and not less OO than C++.
But, as already said, it is a silly question as there is no established "purity" standard anyway.
Big discussions ensue on this issue, sometimes resulting in useful work but to say that Java, or any other language for discussion, is or is not Pure OO is somewhat perplexing to me: What about the actual code that drives the computing engine? If a design tool achieves effectiveness in coding, that is because the coder has given thought to the problem domain and how to go about getting useful results in the area. OO does not write code, you do. The idea of encapsulation and so on have proven their value to me in examining code designs, after I have gotten someting to work.
For me, the problem naturally makes it's own solution available. Then later I get somewhat stuck and consider the design ideas presented by OO but not before putting some code up. We may put up stubbs as a notational matter, but even on back of envelope brainstorming I tend to write raw code directly. There may be effective discussions on what is Pure OO and adherents may cite those, but there are no absolutes.
Yep, it's a pretty irrelevant statement by the OP. Who cares as long as it works?
IMHO, "pure OO" is a religious discussion, and I'm an engineer, not a theologian.
Smalltalk is a pure OO language. Java has roots in C, which were needed to encourage C programmers to even consider it.
At times, I wish we could get rid of them, things like 'int', 'float' and the baggage they need. But then it would not be Java.
I expect that something like Java, probably using the JVM, will come along and be more OO, or not have the crutches of C. Perhaps scala will take off. Perhaps something else.
But in the meantime, I write code.
hmm interesting ..
Java is not pure OO language.
One reason is that calculation of primitive data types on the platforms such as byte, int, long, etc... and the space it tales on the native operating system would be different.
One of my lectures explain it in this way.
So in simple words, Java primitives are not Object. But some of the above qualities satisfied. So Java is not 100% OO language.Quote:
There are six qualities to be satisfied for any programming language to become an Object Oriented.
1. Encapsulation
2. Inheritance
3. Polymorphism
4. All predefined types are objects
5. All operations are performed by invoke with objects
6. All user defined types are objects.