13

I think java is pure object oriented, but in real it is not. But i dont know why java is not pure object oriented language, please help me to find out the reason.

Amr Ashraf
  • 315
  • 4
  • 14
Pushpendra Kuntal
  • 6,118
  • 20
  • 69
  • 119
  • What is your definition of pure object oriented? And why do you think Java is not? Any references? – RBaarda May 27 '11 at 11:21
  • 1
    Have a look at a similar question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/974583/is-java-100-object-oriented – slothrop May 27 '11 at 11:21
  • And this is your second question that will be closed. You should think about it. – Peter Knego May 27 '11 at 11:23
  • 2
    I support the close because it has been asked quite often at SO - but not the reason: it is a very real question. Please, close voters, take your time to find the duplicates, this helps the OP better then having a question downvoted and closed like this. – Andreas Dolk May 27 '11 at 12:04
  • Hence OOP language always deals with only objects that is, every thing should be object whereas in java we use primitive data type(int, float ) that are not objects, so java in not pure OOP but more OOP supported than C language. Hence concept of wrapper classed (Integer etc)has been introduced in Java to resolve these non-object data type. – Puneet Purohit Jan 04 '13 at 05:47

3 Answers3

23

This is a homework question, right?

Primitive types, that's why. For instance try this:

int i = 42;
System.err.println(i.toString());
Rom1
  • 3,167
  • 2
  • 22
  • 39
3

The usual objection is that Java is not "purely" OO because it has primitive types (int, double, etc.), which are not objects.

JB Nizet
  • 678,734
  • 91
  • 1,224
  • 1,255
1

To make proof by contradiction: Java has int, and int, like all primitive types in Java, is not an Object. There are possibly more reasons, though.

Waldheinz
  • 10,399
  • 3
  • 31
  • 61