in reply to •Re: Perl - Is it an OO Language
in thread Perl - Is it an OO Language

I'm confused a little bit as to your grouping of Java and C++ in the same tier of OO languages. I'm not a Java expert, but am I correct in assuming that the only non-OO aspect of Java in that definition is its continuance of primitive data types? I can't recite all of the classes in the the Java 2 API, but I haven't come across anything yet that cna't be extended or subclassed or introspected... All in all, I agree with your posts here wholly, except that I would break up that tier and put Java a little higher, as it is possible to write purely procedural C++, which is just not an option in Java.
  • Comment on Re: •Re: Perl - Is it an OO Language

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
•Re: Re: •Re: Perl - Is it an OO Language
by merlyn (Sage) on Aug 27, 2002 at 20:10 UTC
    Yes, the need for "primitive types" and "boxing" is one of the things that really takes Java out of the "pure OO" category.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker