No, I have no problem with your assertion. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.

At the implementation level, Perl only supports very primitive OO concepts, and it is pretty much hacked for the sack to be modern.

Java is OOO, "OO"-oriented. It is based on OO methodology, it is almost a full (there are still gaps) implementation of OO methoddology, and it solely exists for OO.

Even c++ is not that OOO. When you write code in c++, you can choose not to have even a single class, but in Java, at least you have to have at least one class, (although a bad Java programmer can put everything into one huge class, and all code into the constructor of that class, that's just the bad judgement of a single person;-)

When I replied to the original post, I am more focused on a conceptual level. What I dislike the most is that, the author of the original post clearly mixed OO design with specific languages. (I dislike the idea, not the author, make this crystal clear)

OO is not a language, it is a design methodology, language is just the implementation of the idea, not the idea.

There is no such question as whether Perl have the filter object. Filter is an object, this is a given, and it is a reflection of the real world. It can be implemented by using Java, as well as using Perl.

Of course, on the other hand, When Perl can make it, Java can make it really gracefully, and make it into a beauty. I don't have problem with this assertion, not at all ;-)

I love Perl, but not a fundamentalist.