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.

Similar Messages

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.

Why java is called java2

why java is called java2 and another thing that i would like to know is why it was renamed to java from its previous name OAK
Thanx
Manish

why java is called java2Not to sure about this one, but I think it was a marketing decision - I guess 'Welcome to the Java 2 platform' sounds better than saying 'Welcome to the JDK 1.2.1 platform' :=)
and another thing that i
would like to know is why it was renamed to java from
its previous name OAKThere was already a patented product named 'OAK', so they had to rename it to something else to avoid the law.
>
Thanx
ManishA brief history of Java:
http://java.sun.com/features/1998/05/birthday.html
http://www.ils.unc.edu/blaze/java/javahist.html

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.

Why java is called platform independent

Hello
Why java is called as platform independent?Any body please give a detailed explanation since im a beginner to java technology.
ThankYou
Jk

BigDaddyLoveHandles wrote:
georgemc wrote:
SunFred wrote:
Java is not platform independent since it depends on the Java platform ;)Don't complicate matters!I always thought the phrase should have been "platform agnostic"It's a phrase I've used meself

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.

ExternalInterface.call problem with object-orientation

Hi
I am using an swf inside a PDF. In a PDF-context the ExternalInterface-class works much the same as it does within a website. So far calling a function in the document-script works.
The thing now is, that I really try to use an object-oriented approach as often as I can. In this case I have a function I could call using
var jsCaller:Object = ExternalInterface.call("myFunction",parameters);
This works as expected.
However, I have now made that function a method in an object, so I can access it within JS using dot-notation: myCoolObject.myFunction(); This works as well, so the problem is not the function itself. However, the call
var jsCaller:Object = ExternalInterface.call("myCoolObject.myFunction",parameters);
does not work.
This means there's either something I'm missing, or it's a limitation of ExternalInterface, or it's a limitation of externalInterface in a pdf-context.
Anyone to enlighten me?

If EI calls eval it should be able to resolve the object-path. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. Also note that my parameter is an array, so this probably wouldn't work, even if the syntax did.
Anyway, I tested your syntax in my PDF, and it showed the same behaviour as before (i.e. the function in which the EI-call was placed could not be executed, and acrobat claimed there was no such function). It didn't work with my normal function, and not even with a simple console.println-statement that way. So in PDFs it definitely doesn't work like that.
But thanks for the suggestion!

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.

ToString method why its not called implicitly for objects

class Building { }
public class Example
public static void main()
Building b = new Building();
String s = (String)b;
in the 5th Line it shows error that cannot cast building type to string..
but all classes have the toString method which is called whenever we give the object arguement in System.out.println();
the following code compiles
class Building { }
class Example
public static void main()
Building b = new Building();
System.out.println(b);
can anyone explain this?

I get your point about casting.
but in the println statement when u pass the building object it calls the toString method and generates a new string object
why does not it do the same in the below code.
String s = b;// b is a building object
is the tostring method implicitly called only in println where it expects a string?

Why java is called platform independent? "write once, run anywhere" code...

I do have a answer for this. Please shed some light whether i am right or wrong.
When you say java as platform independent, it means that, any java program once compiled to java class can be transferred to anyother machine(say, from windows to unix) can be executed, provided the destination machine has JVM.
where as, in C/C++, if we transfer the object files from one machine to another machine, they will not be executed and they have to be re-compiled in the other machine.
Am i correct?
please, do give me your idea on this...
thanks...

Thanks george !

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

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

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.

Any good Java object oriented book?

Hi,
I am looking for a Java book that teaches good object oriented programming. Is there any good Java object-oriented book in the market?
Thanks.

"Thinking in Java" 2nd Edition by Bruce Eckels. You
can download it from his website - the url escapes me
at the minute. You should be able to find it no
problem though.I second that recommendation (although it's "Eckel" without the "s"). He now has a Beta 3rd edition of the book.
The URL is http://www.bruceeckel.com/

Why java is called as true object oriented language?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for