maintenance, reusability, and adaptability are the advantages of oops in java. oops uses different concepts such as abstraction, polymorphism, inheritance, and encapsulation. an object is a combination of data that has data members and functions. we modularize the real world, by implementing and inheriting things together. OOPs is a language given to program the user to build software that rests on classes and objects.

In this blog, we will go over the fundamentals of OOPs concepts in Java. An illustration of how java’s oops principles differ from other programming paradigms.Concepts of OOPs comparison with different programming languages using an example.In this blog, we will go over the fundamentals of OOPs concepts in Java.Ultimately I think the justification for primitives is efficiency: the static analysis needed to determine that an int object can be treated purely as JVM integer value may have been considered too big a problem when the language was designed. Operators are just syntactical sugar and + and would be mapped do the plus method at compile time, although we need to be careful that int.plus(float) returns float as does us(int), and so on. Remaining issues: Constants - but these can be dealt with similarly to strings. Maybe we could define class int with no data members, but with native methods that manipulate this internal data. On second thoughts, we know Java maintains internal data per object (locks, etc.).

One reason Java can't obviously do away with non-object primitives ( int, etc.) is that it does not support native data members. Today, with many desktops with multiple gigabytes of memory, the overhead of objects are less of an issue. Definitely more than the minimum of several bytes required for primitive values) I can't remember the exact numbers, but an object overhead was around 50-100 bytes of memory. The reason for having primitives is probably the reason given in Peter's answer - back when Java was introduced in the mid-90's, memory on systems were mostly in the double-digit megabytes, so having each and every value be an object was large overhead. That said, Java does have objects that wrap around the primitives such as Integer, Boolean, Character and such. On the other hand, to my knowledge, there is no requirement that a piece of code must be associated with a class, as is the case with Java. This certainly does make it more object-oriented than Java. Ruby, as you mentioned, and happened to be the first language that came to my mind as well, is a language that does not have primitives, and all values are objects. However, the enforcement of having every program be a class makes it very oriented toward object-oriented programming. Java, for the reason you mentioned, having primitives, doesn't make it a purely object-oriented programming language. Even if you design a language that prevents shooting yourself in the foot, there's a difference between accidental complexity and real complexity (see No Silver Bullet) and mediocre developers will always find creative ways to shoot themselves.įor example Perl 5 is not object-oriented, but it is extensible enough that it allows Moose, an object system that allows very advanced techniques for dealing with the complexity of OO. And whenever this issue was raised (see Guy Steele's 'Growing a Language') the 'oh noes, but what about Joe Sixpack?' argument is given. What bothers me about Java is that it doesn't provide the means to abstract ideas efficiently, to extend the language where it has problems. Ruby also has problems that you'll encounter from time to time. You can have class-based OO (C++, Java, C#), or you can have prototype-based OO (Javascript, Lua).ġ00% object oriented doesn't mean much, really. 'Object oriented' also means lots of things for lots of people. Not implementing primitives as first-class objects was a compromise they had taken for speed purposes, although I think in the long run it was a really bad decision. When Java first appeared (versions 1.x) the JVM was really, really slow.

Oops concepts in java