Some time ago, I noticed this argument raging in one of the other threads, but I don't remember which one. I think it takes a special interest to pursue it, and as I recall - some people were saying they'd been through the discussion too many times before. I'm not sure it's something for application developers to worry about. If it works, it works.
Quite right, the question has been asked many, many times before. If you search through the archives you'll find the discussions. Problem is, the question doesn't make sense unless you have a definition what a perfectly object oriented programming language is, and that if you ask n people for their definition, you probably get n+1 answers.
It's true that Java has non-object entities, namely, the primitives like int, double, etc.
Perhaps in keeping with the idea of a Java beginner's forum; Awad might tell us why he thinks that Java is not "perfectly" (or otherwise) object oriented? There might be a concrete answer to a concrete question. [ August 30, 2007: Message edited by: Roger F. Gay ]
Roger F. Gay
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
I usually don't jump into this sort of discussion. As an application developer, I'm more concerned with how a language supports what I'm trying to do than whether it's philosophically pure. But I might have tripped across a simple answer that those who are tired of the argument might find useful.
Java is one of the "object-oriented" languages. It strikes me that "perfectly object oriented" (thought came from Ulf's comment above) is perfectly nonsencical. It's not object programming (perfectly), it's merely described as oriented to objects - "object-oriented."