Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 05/16/07 15:25

Willem Bogaerts wrote:
>>> I'm curious why you think Java "is a pure OO implementation?"
>
>> Why do you think it isn't?
>
> Because it is not pure OO. Not everything is an object. There are "basic
> types" and "objects" in java. And Strings, that are both/neither basic
> types and objects.
>
> In pure OO languages (like Ruby), ALL types are objects. Including
> integers, floats, etc.
>

OK, I'll grant that the primitive types are not objects, so it isn't a
"pure OO language" in that sense.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]