"Purely object oriented" means it should contain only classes and objects. It should not contain primitive datatypes like int, float, char....etc
In pure object oriented languages, we should access every thing by message passing (through objects).
Examples contain Ruby, Smalltalk and Eiffel.
Yes.
Yes.
Java is actually not a pure object oriented programming language. See the related question below for the reasons why.
Yes, but it is not a pure object-oriented language. Since C++ evolved from C, it still makes use of primitives which are not part of the object-oriented paradigm.
No, C has nothing to do with OO.
The languages C# and Ruby are notable for their pure object oriented design. You can even call instance functions on literals, such as 10.to_s (Ruby) or 10.ToString() (C#). Other object-oriented designs tend to treat primitives as non-objects, such as in Java, and are therefore not technically "100%" object-oriented.
No. C is not object-oriented, it is a procedural language.C++, while object-oriented, is not purelyobject-oriented. One of the requirements for a pure object-oriented language is that everything is an object. C++ still has primitive data types (int, long, double, etc.), and so is not purely object-oriented.
If an object oriented language supports the concept of primitive data types then the language is not a pure. C++ is not pure because it supports raw data pointers and fundamental types like int and float, none of which have member methods associated with them. Java, on the other hand, is pure object oriented because it has no primitive data types; all types are implemented as objects. Java is therefore easier to use than C++, but is less efficient because it provides no low-level interaction with the machine.
Q. What is the difference between pure object oriented language & object oriented language?? plz give ans this question QUICK.......... shyamniitasp.net@gmail.com
since Java have primitive data types, I think its not pure OO
the concept of "pure" in object orientation is a little subjective and not quite well defined in practice, but there are pure object oriented programming languages. The principles of object orientation on the other hand are well defined. Programming languages are quite nested in complicated materials, and it is hard to say that everything must be an object, since all formal systems need primitives. How can you define an object without the notion of an object as a definition? This all comes down to type theory, and one can't define everything as "something" without knowing the "something". With this, Java is not actually a pure object oriented programming language since it needs primitives. The only way you can yield a pure programming language with no primitives is not even having the notion of defining concrete terms in a programming language since it doesn't have primitives in it.Smalltalk is an example of a pure programming language. With this, I can't exactly answer the question since you've presented two OO programming languages, neither of which is "pure".-Fabianski BenjaminIndia
Java is called a "pure" object-oriented language because it requires that all code written in it be wrapped in objects. This differs from the more common meaning of "pure" object-oriented (everything is an object) in that Java has primitive types and primitive operations on them - int, char, double, float, long and addition, subtraction, multiplication, division. A real example of a PURE object-oriented language is Smalltalk, one of Java's predecessors.