print "driver starting\n";
`call_system_util1`;
`call_system_util2`;
print "driver finished\n";
[download]

There are two subtle bits of syntatic sugar here. First, Perl puts things in the main package by default. Second, code does not have to appear in a method/sub/function/whatever. It can just go in a driving script. Perhaps these differences seem small, but they are real.

Phil

But, not matter what, you must put all of that in a class. Hence the charge: Java is Object Oriented Only.

Same in Perl. If one is not specified explicitely, main is used.

You can't just write a driver

You can't have driver code in C either, but that doesn't stop you from coding procedurally in C. That Java can't have drive code does not preclude programmers from writting procedural Java programs.

Perhaps these differences seem small, but they are real.

I didn't say there weren't differences. (Quite the opposite.) I said programmers code procedurally in Java, so it's not only OO.

I think you're both talking past each other here. What I believe he's trying to emphasize may be that while with perl you've got this:

#!/usr/bin/perl
print "Hello, world\n";
[download]

In Java you're going to have to break out:

public class HelloWorld {
  public static void main( String args[] ) {
    System.out.println( "Hello, world\n" );
  }
}
[download]

Perl makes it dead simple to whip out call-this-call-this-call-this-boom-done style code, whereas to get the same thing in Java you've got to write a whole lot more overhead explicitly (i.e. you'd have a whole lot of static methods in some class rather than just a couple of subs hiding at the bottom of your quick, declarative Perl).

Update: Upon reflection, that's probably not what they mean by OO only. Maybe someone's thinking "pure OO", but then Java's not (c.f. int and other primitive, non-object types). Never mind me.

But maybe my last paragraph will be of some use to the OP.

Or not. Meh.