Posted by Thomas Gagne on 05/16/07 17:18

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> <snip>
>
> OK, I'll grant that the primitive types are not objects, so it isn't a
> "pure OO language" in that sense.
>
It's been a while since I've used Java, but I'm pretty sure its messages
aren't objects either. And if its stack frame were an object it would
make backtracking and exception continuations more easily implemented.

Another reason one might consider Java fairly non-OO is the language's
dependency on its syntax for feature implementation. Consider how new
features in Java require parser/compiler changes and new keywords rather
than new methods to existing objects.

Java's static typing is another constraining feature. If you've never
worked without it then dynamic typing's value and the importance of
messages instead of function calls may be lost on you.

But I think comparing Java to OO languages is unfair since Java wasn't
designed to be a great OO language (that had been done years earlier),
it was a product designed to capitalize on the emerging web hysteria and
an antidote to C and C++ programming by adding garbage collection (and
more keywords).

--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php>
to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.

[Back to original message]