Java is 100% pure object oriented language or not?

PLS help me...?
I am get confussed.
Java is 100% pure object oriented language or not?

the only full OO programming language on thisplanet
is SmallTalk.On your planet maybe. On mine, at least Eiffel
also exists, probably more unknown others too. Some
count Ruby, but I never looked at it.Ruby is pure OO too, FYI.
the only full OO programming language on thisplanet
is SmallTalk.Care to explain it in some more detail? What
exactly is 100% OO, b.t.w.?No, I don't careWow, what an incredibly unhelpful response.
In essence, 100% OO implies that every type within the language is an object. Since Java has primitive types like int, boolean, float etc, it cannot count as 100% OO.

Similar Messages

Is java 100% pure object oriented?

I am very confuse is java 100% pure object oriented language.
bcoz
1)object oriented means everything should be in object but
primitive data type is not object.
2) java don't support multiple inheritances which is one of the oop 's
concept

I'd say that java is 100% java. No more, noless.
I'm gonna say it's about 99.4738383% java. For
no
reason other than to confuse idiotsSomeone's always bumping their heads against
some
arbitrary theoretical purity when they aremissing
what was, is and always has been most important:
functionality.Functionality matters virtually nothing to thepeople
that post these "questions". All that matters is
being able to say the right thing in interviews so
they can get a job and get carried through their
career by people who actually know what they're
doing. See it all the timeHehe, who carries you whilst you post here all day
:P
Ant builds, mostly :p

What is the strict criteria for a Pure Object Oriented Language ?

Can a fully object oriented language qualify as a pure Object Oriented Language.fF not what are the exact criteria for qualifying a language as Pure Object Oriented Language.Any examples of both would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance.

I guess you can check the link
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?forumID=31&threadID=725662 for this.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make by posting a link to that thread.
Again,if someone thinks that something does not exist,what's the point debating on it.There is no point in debating this.
I don't care,Me neither.
tell me the definition,Like I already said many times: there exists no widely accepted definition of what a "pure OO language" is!
So, I ask you yet again: what is YOUR definition of such a thing? ANd don't go posting links to articles or other threads: just explain in your own wording of what YOU think a "pure OO language" is, and I'll answer your question by telling you if Java fits that definition.
search on google,why do you need that are not answers to my questions I see it has no use arguing with you: you don't seem to understand me.
,but more irrelevant questions on my simple question.I see a chain of irrelevant question, starting with your original post.

Why java is called pure object oriented.

i know that java is called as pure object oriented language.
why it is called so even though it has primitive datatypes and also it doesnot support multiple inheritance completely. it only supports in the case of interfaces but not in the case of classes. then why it is called pure object oriented.

Its because you cannot write an executable java program without creating an object. Well, you can:
public class a
public static void main( String a[] )
}In contrary to C++, there can be no variables or functions in the wild (outside a class).
You can not create an executable java program without creating a class (but not forcibly its instance, an object.)
The "pure object oriented" wording in this sense has not really much importance, it is rather a marketing ploy.

Is Java pure Object-Oriented ????

hi friends,
wat do u feel, Is java a pure object oriented language??? then wat is object oriented pgming ???
bye..

> wat do u feel, Is java a pure object
oriented language??? then wat is object oriented
pgming ???
On "purity" as a measure of object-orientedness:
However, this definition is problematic in that it implies that "purity" is a valid concept. Yet, there is no accepted definition of the term "pure OO language". Despite years of discussion and argument on the net, and in other circles, I have never seen anyone present a definition of a "pure OOPL" that met with general agreement by others.
-- Robert Martin, founder, CEO, and president of Object Mentor Inc., software industry leader.
On the value of using "purity" as a measure of a programming language:
I will not go into the discussion about ``purity'' beyond mentioning that I think that a general purpose programming language ought to and can support more than one programming style (``paradigm'').
-- Bjarne Stroustrup, designer and implementer of the C++ programming language, etc.
~

Java is pure object oriented programing language or not why?

please clear
java is pure object oriented programing language or not why?

And there is some concepts of object orientation that
Java not implements like: Operator
Overloading and Multiple Heritage. But, i think
that we can live without those features.
And the sucess of Java is a proof of this.I don't believe that operator overloading and multiple inheritance are required aspects of object programming.

Why java is called as true object oriented language?

HI Friends,
Though few oops concepts is not supported , why java is called as truly object oriented language and C++ as not a purely object oriented language???? Please, if any one know , give me the answer.
Thanks to all.

few oops concepts is not supportedwhich concepts?
as far as i know...to be OO, you must supports
encapsulation, abstraction, inheritancxe, composition (aggretration, et all) and polymorphism. Java supports all those comcept..now..Java is a hybrid due to what Jverd has pointed out.
the only pure OO language that i know of is SmallTalk. they have Meta class that can create Class object. and all their primitaives are object.
C# comes close, but their Class are not object.

Java is 100% pure OOPS Language or not

Hi Everyone!
I want to know that Java is 100% pure OOPS Language or not??
If yes or no, then why?
Plz reply

Use the search window on the right side of this page. This absolutely meaningless question has been asked, and answered (argued about really) hundreds of times on this forum already.
@mods, please lock this thread.

Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming (True/False)

Hi everybody,
Many of them saying that Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming.
I am very much confusing on that, so please help me to confirm that "Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming Language".

JAVA_NV wrote:
gopivista wrote:
Hi everybody,
Many of them saying that Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming.
I am very much confusing on that, so please help me to confirm that "Java is a Partially Object-Oriented Programming Language".Java is not purely Object-Oriented Programming,for this two reasons are there
one is we cant create Objects to the primitive data types and there is no multiple Inheritance concept .While there are many definitions of "purely object oriented," and no on widely accepted standard, I've never heard one that requires multiple inheritance. That would NOT be a reason why Java is not fully OO.

IS Java Is puer Object Oriented Language

Pls I don't agree that java is puer OO.
This is the example..
I have 2 classes
class One {
public void main( Strin...) {
Two t = t new Two();
t.print();
class Two {
public void print ( ) {
S.o.p(" Not a object Oriented");
Now if i compil the both the class ane run the
first classs java One
it prints the msg... is fine
buu now i change the access modifier of the class Tow of the method print() and private ..
and compile the class Two not the One...
then i run the class One..
still it prints the msg..
It does't give any error... untile i recompile the one.java with the Two.class the it says print() can not be accsed..
can u say now it violate.. the OOPs concept..

You have discovered a part of Java that when you think OO does not do what you would expect. The system itself does not act in an OO way, but this does not mean that the language is not. It may not yet be Component friendly in a way that allows you to write components and then dynamically deploy them while thinking of the deployed components as objects that are instances of the component ?class?.
It took me a long time to accept that every single person has a different concept of what OO means. I had someone at Sun (during an interview) tell me that for pure OO an accessor or mutater should do nothing more than return a member or replace the value of that member with the exact value in the parameter. (Needless to say I didn't want or receive that position although I still wouldn?t mind working for Sun :)
I always thought that a ~pure~ OO language had to be completely type safe. (or as close as you can get) There could be no run time type errors. Well, this counts out not only Java, but also Smalltalk.
I am also of the opinion that there should be no "base types" (no mater how they are handled under the covers) C# does this nicely.
Then there is Parametric Polymorphism, which can be done nicely by generic typing and will be available in Java soon. This addition to a language is invaluable in allowing the developer to think in an OO way.
Invariants are another language feature that some would require for OO.
The point is that everyone has a different set of opinions about all of these things. I am absolutely certain that my opinions are the correct ones, as is anyone who is passionate about OO.
In my opinion Generics and Accretions have really made Java come of age. It is finally a language that I will think of as OO enoug.
Hopefully some day we will also get asynchronous methods (instead of threads) a better defined contract specification, and do away (at least on the surface) with base types. Then it would be a real OO system.
Wait, wait, we could add orthogonal persistence, or at least a typed persistence. We could outlaw public member feilds, We could fix the typeing issues with interfaces, we could...
sigh At least Java is moving forward. It may be dog slow, but as someone recently told me, there are actualy people out there building real systems with Java and they need it to move slow enough to get their work done, so they can make money, so they can pay people to develop.
You got to make sure that while you are reaching for that pie in the sky, it doesn't fall on your face. But then I like a bit of slapstick.

Object Oriented? Or Not?

Perhaps the way I raised this question would be peculiar for you as I'm a newbie!
I'm willing to use oracle object oriented programing for my applications, and some senior people(work in my organization) told me that Object oriented database concept is failed in the industry. As a reason they say that; even if Object oriented databases solved some problems people had with relational databases, still Object oriented databases are failed to facilitate most of the advantages of relational databases. It's somewhat chaotic for me, as I'm new to PL developments.
They didn't mention any specific reason; but just told me that relational databases perform well and faster than object oriented databases, and for business logic, object oriented databases has some accuracy issues.
But I'm not ready to accept that it will be useless to learn 'Oracle Object Oriented Programing' or 'Object Oriented Database Concept' would be failed.
So I need to know,
1. Will it be useless to learn & use 'OOP' techniques when learning PL/SQL programing?
2. Is there any disadvantage of using 'OOP' with oracle? (If there is any, please let me know if you have time for that).
Especially, (The most pleasing answer I would like to hear from you ;-) )
3. If Object Oriented Databases concept is better and something that a "PL/SQL" developer must learn; please let me know that.
Please provide me a link if you can, which would help me to learn why should we use 'OOP' with oracle (if Object oriented database is better than Relational database)

Intruder wrote:
So I need to know,
1. Will it be useless to learn & use 'OOP' techniques when learning PL/SQL programing?No. OOP has very little do with relational database design. The two is not mutually exclusive and can co-exist easily.
2. Is there any disadvantage of using 'OOP' with oracle? (If there is any, please let me know if you have time for that).That depends on how+ you use it. If OOP was truly horrible and bad, then why does Oracle spend money on the research and development on it for their RDBMS product?
Especially, (The most pleasing answer I would like to hear from you ;-) )
3. If Object Oriented Databases concept is better and something that a "PL/SQL" developer must learn; please let me know that.OOP is not Object Orientated Database. These are two very different concepts. OOP competes with procedural programming. Object Orientated Database design competes with Relational Database Design (and others of course).
There are two primary issues with an Object Orientated Database design. Complexity. Performance.
Do you for example store the subclasses of the same abstract class in the same physical object table? You can do that in Oracle.. but then the database need to resolve the class type at run-time.. every single time.. for every single object accessed... At what cost ito performance?
How do you treat collection classes? A collection can be stored as a physical table. It can also be stored as an attribute (column) of an object (table) - in which case the physical implementation for that is a nested table. There are dire performance issues with nested tables when these are used and applied incorrectly.
There are numerous such issues.
Compare this with something as mature and robust as Relational Database Design. Easy to understand. Easy to use. And what the Oracle RDBMS product was specifically designed to support.
Which one is "+better+" (especially in the Oracle RDBMS environment)? It should be obvious.
I suggest that you read Codd's original paper on "+A Relation Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks+", read "+The Third Manifesto+" from Chris Date, and papers from various other authors for insight.

Is Java purely Object Oriented Language ?

Hi All,
Can any of you java masters tell me whether java is a purely OOL or not ?
and if yes then what are those factor that make a language OO , and if not then why ?

Hi All,
Can any of you java masters tell me whether java is a
purely OOL or not ?
and if yes then what are those factor that make a
language OO , and if not then why ?What about asking your teacher, or searching the forum? This question is frequently asked so you will not have any problems in finding a thread where this is discussed.
Kaj

Is Java 100% Object Oriented?

Is java 100% pure OOP?
I said no.. the reason is we can use primitive data types(which is not a
object)also....and also static method which can be accessed without
creating objects...Hope u understood my problem.
Can anyone give clear idea about this and mention if anything wrong with
my answer.........

Hi Guys,
No, Java is not a pure Object Oriented Language.
Many languages claim to be Object-Oriented. While the exact definition of the term is highly variable depending upon who you ask, there are several qualities thati feel an Object-Oriented language should have:
* Encapsulation/Information Hiding
* Inheritance
* Polymorphism/Dynamic Binding
* All pre-defined types are Objects
* All operations performed by sending messages to Objects
* All user-defined types are Objects
Java fails in the fourth condition because Java has primitive types viz; int ,float etc.....
And it also fails at the fifth condition because it fails to satisfy the fourth condition.
Only three languages are pure Object-Oriented
* Eiffel
* Smalltalk
* Ruby
For other details u can visit the blog created by me at http://noviceinjava.blogspot.com/
Though it has just started it will certainly grow as people get to know bout it
Thanks n Regards
Naveen M

Facilities of object oriented java

What could be the two facilities which Java, as an 'Object Oriented' language, has which JavaScript , as an 'Object Based language, does not have.

Sounds to me like you're one of those guys who takes exam questions right off the exam and just posts them here expecting others to answer your exam for you.

Can I develop a 100% Object Oriented DB with Oracle 10g?

Hello!
I need to know if I can develop a pure Object Oriented Data Base? because I have been looking for this information, and I just found Oracle's arquitecture is oriented to relational object model.
Thanks!
Edited by: 925803 on 05-abr-2012 10:39

Dear "925803",
1) You're asking this question in the Oracle Application Express discussion forum - not really related to generic Database questions. This Database forum may be more suited: General Database Discussions
2) The Oracle database is not an object-oriented database.
Joel

Java is 100% pure object oriented language or not?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for