How righteous to compare OO 'Scripting' Language(Ruby) with "THE" OO Language (Java)?

[Sree Va]

How righteous to compare OO 'Scripting' Language (Ruby) with "THE" OO Language (Java)?!

[Lasse Koskela]

Originally posted by Sree Va:
How righteous to compare OO 'Scripting' Language (Ruby) with "THE" OO Language (Java)?!

I'm not sure if I understand the meaning of the above.

First of all, is that a question or a statement?
Second, what do you mean by "THE" OO language?

[Sree Va]

When a sentence contains 'How' and ends with '?', {whisper}I guess it is a QUESTION.

And
"THE" OO Language is 'Java'.
[ February 01, 2007: Message edited by: Sree Va ]

[Lasse Koskela]

Originally posted by Sree Va:
When a sentence contains 'How' and ends with '?', {whisper}I guess it is a QUESTION.

Actually, it ended with an exclamation mark

Originally posted by Sree Va:
"THE" OO Language is 'Java'.

Ok. I suspected that was what you meant but I wasn't sure because that's an odd statement. After all, Java has these weird things called "primitives" that have nothing to do with objects whereas in Ruby and Smalltalk, for example, everything is an object.

[Sree Va]

> Actually, it ended with an exclamation mark
I knew you say that. But I have answer: Check the title, Mr/Ms.

>
Ok. I suspected that was what you meant but I wasn't sure because that's an odd statement. After all, Java has these weird things called "primitives" that have nothing to do with objects whereas in Ruby and Smalltalk, for example, everything is an object.

Answer: Auto Boxing & Unboxing
But before that letz visit Dictionary.

Main Entry:
ori�ent�ed Listen to the pronunciation of oriented
Pronunciation:
\ˈȯr-ē-ˌen-təd\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1937

: intellectually, emotionally, or functionally directed <humanistically oriented scholars> <market-oriented production>
[ February 02, 2007: Message edited by: Sree Va ]

[Pradeep bhatt]

Sree Va ,
I am not undestanding the cryptic langauge that you write using scripts.

Is the "if" statement in Ruby OO too?

[Justin Gehtland]

Java is not "THE" OO language, just "A" OO language. It has many predecessors in the space, some of which are more "pure" than others. It has successors, too. If "object orientation" were rated on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put Java at around an 8, and Ruby at around a 9. Autoboxing/unboxing, while interesting, are compiler hacks to get around the fact that Java was built from the ground up with two main Types, Primitives and Object. And since Autoboxing/unboxing was only added in Java5, its a new feature that many developers aren't even taking advantage of yet.

(Anybody want to count how many parseFloat() calls are still laying around your code? ;-) )

Which is to say, Java took an approach to object orientation which far exceeded that of its direct progenitor, C++. C++, of course, was OO bolted on to C, and as such, suffered from complexity and lack of platform features to enable good OO. Java was an immense step forward, but that doesn't make it the "best" or even "only" example of a good OO language. Ruby is squarely in that camp (with some functional programming goodness mixed in), and some might argue that SmallTalk is a better OO language than either.

[Michael Ernest]

Anyone who considers Java "the" OO language is lacking more than a history lesson. Never mind the idea that scripting somehow compromises the OOP model.