Originally posted by George Daswani: [QB]It's not completely object oriented - primitives, and it's missing a first-class meta-class (unlike in SmallTalk).
You'll note here that you have received "someone else's" definition of "Object-Oriented". As Barry said, you need to provide the context before an answer can be provided. There is no authoritative definition. In *my* definition, Java is not object-oriented, simply because using it in any way implies a software requirement defect, which is a direct contradiction of what I believe are the objectives of "Object-Oriented" programming languages.
I suspect you're not performing a survey for everyone's definition of "Object-Oriented". [ October 20, 2005: Message edited by: Tony Morris ]
And to strengthen Tony's point, in *my* definition Java *is* object oriented, because of the feature of polymorphism - although there are languages that are even *more* OO, such as Smalltalk, for a whole bunch of reasons.
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus