I am going to discuss one of the oldest questions related to Java, whether Java a pure object-oriented language or not? The short answer is no. My answer is based on the fact that in a pure object-oriented language everything is an object and there are many things in Java that are not objects like primitive data types like boolean, char, short, int, long, float, double, different kinds of arithmetic, logical and bitwise operator like +, -. *, /, &&, || etc. There are only a few pure OO programming languages are Smalltalk and Eiffel, If there is more, I may not know but Smalltalk is often touted as the purest form of an object-oriented language.
Though Java is probably the most successful Object-oriented programming language, which also got some functional programming touch in Java 8, it has been never considered 100% or pure object-oriented programming language. If it were, all its primitives would be objects.
It actually moves half-way in this direction with String (and perhaps Array), but it doesn't quite go far enough. Actually, one could argue that as String and Array aren't inheritable, that makes those parts of Java at best object-based.
Though, if you have to choose an object-oriented programming language for Software development, I would argue to choose Java because of its immense popularity, features, and community support.
There are seven qualities to be satisfied for a programming language to be pure Object Oriented. They are:
1. Encapsulation/Data Hiding
2. Inheritance
3. Polymorphism
4. Abstraction
5. All predefined types are objects
6. All operations are performed by sending messages to objects
7. All user-defined types are objects.
If you look at these seven qualities, Java does satisfy most of them. Java supports Encapsulation at class and package level, It supports Abstraction, Inheritance, and Polymorphism, and all user-defined types are also objects.
What it doesn't support is #5, all predefined types are not objects in Java, because you can define primitive types. This means it also violates #6. That's why Java is not a pure object-oriented language.
Smalltalk is often considered one of the purest Object-oriented languages and comparing Java with Smalltalk will give you sufficient reasons, why Java is not 100% object-oriented language. The following point makes sense to me.
1) Primitive data types are either stored directly in fields or on the stack rather than on the heap. This is the reason Java is not considered a pure OO programming language
2) If we have to classify in "pure OO" or "non-pure OO" we have a problem. It’s better to talk about "purity levels". Smalltalk has a higher purity level than Java. "Primitive types" in Smalltalk are actually "Primitive Classes" and in Smalltalk, all "procedures" or "functions" are really messages
On closing notes, You can make your program pure object-oriented by using Autoboxing, but Java compiler supports primitive data types, so Java cannot be Pure object-oriented unless it makes everything in terms of objects.
In short, Java is not pure object-oriented programming language because it supports primitive data types and everything is not an object in Java.
Let me know what is your thought on this, do you consider Java pure object-oriented language? If not, can you think of reasons due to which Java is not 100% object-oriented language?
Though Java is probably the most successful Object-oriented programming language, which also got some functional programming touch in Java 8, it has been never considered 100% or pure object-oriented programming language. If it were, all its primitives would be objects.
It actually moves half-way in this direction with String (and perhaps Array), but it doesn't quite go far enough. Actually, one could argue that as String and Array aren't inheritable, that makes those parts of Java at best object-based.
Though, if you have to choose an object-oriented programming language for Software development, I would argue to choose Java because of its immense popularity, features, and community support.
Is Java is Pure Object-Oriented language?
There are seven qualities to be satisfied for a programming language to be pure Object Oriented. They are:
1. Encapsulation/Data Hiding
2. Inheritance
3. Polymorphism
4. Abstraction
5. All predefined types are objects
6. All operations are performed by sending messages to objects
7. All user-defined types are objects.
If you look at these seven qualities, Java does satisfy most of them. Java supports Encapsulation at class and package level, It supports Abstraction, Inheritance, and Polymorphism, and all user-defined types are also objects.
What it doesn't support is #5, all predefined types are not objects in Java, because you can define primitive types. This means it also violates #6. That's why Java is not a pure object-oriented language.
Why Java is not Pure Object-Oriented language?
Smalltalk is often considered one of the purest Object-oriented languages and comparing Java with Smalltalk will give you sufficient reasons, why Java is not 100% object-oriented language. The following point makes sense to me.
2) If we have to classify in "pure OO" or "non-pure OO" we have a problem. It’s better to talk about "purity levels". Smalltalk has a higher purity level than Java. "Primitive types" in Smalltalk are actually "Primitive Classes" and in Smalltalk, all "procedures" or "functions" are really messages
On closing notes, You can make your program pure object-oriented by using Autoboxing, but Java compiler supports primitive data types, so Java cannot be Pure object-oriented unless it makes everything in terms of objects.
In short, Java is not pure object-oriented programming language because it supports primitive data types and everything is not an object in Java.
Let me know what is your thought on this, do you consider Java pure object-oriented language? If not, can you think of reasons due to which Java is not 100% object-oriented language?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment