Do you know why C++ is not a pure Object Oriented
language?
C++ can be considered C with classes tacked
on.
Those classes are the basis of objects, AKA
object oriented programming.
I heard that in class.
C++ is similar to Java, but not quite.
Java, at least, is considered a pure object
oriented language.
A security hole filled, often updated and
painfully error prone but pure object oriented
language.
If you want a true object oriented language
and want to stay with C, go with Objective
C.
If I learn that, I'll be working for Apple
or someone who writes apps for Apple.
Why would someone say coding in C++ isn't
writing OO code?
You can write code in C++ without classes
and objects, whereas true object oriented
languages can't be written without objects.
I've heard it is or is not object oriented
depending on your definition of object oriented.
Oh, please, no arguing over what the definition
of is will be.
No, just object oriented, like whether C++
is in the same class as Ruby and Smalltalk?
Ruby and Smalltalk are object oriented, yes,
but C++ can be if you use the classes for
everything.
But you don't have to use classes, so it isn't
object oriented.
If you really want to go down that road, primitive
types aren't objects themselves, so you could
argue Java isn't object oriented.
That argument only wins extra credit points
on a programming class test.
Or on a forum where you want to find another
reason to bash Java.
As if anyone needs another reason to bash
Java.
But the standard says Java is OO.
But what about the standards that say primitive
types are called objects?
I haven't seen the standards, so I don't know
if that's a standard answer.
But if you can program in C++ without using
objects, then it isn't an object oriented
language.
