[lmm]

> At any rate it's not a case of Java making more things objects than its forebears.

There are other cases though. E.g. in C++ you could always have function pointers which were not objects and functions which were not methods. In Java you had to use instances of anonymous classes in place of function pointers, and all of your functions had to be (possibly static) methods.

[kragen]

Function pointers in C++ are "objects", and the difference between static methods and C-style functions which are not methods seems purely syntactic to me, or at best a question of namespacing. Regardless, static methods are not objects either in Java or in C++, so that is also not a case of something being an "object" in Java and not in C++.

[lmm]

> Function pointers in C++ are "objects"

In the C++ sense, but they don't have classes and don't participate in inheritance. Whereas the early-Java equivalents do.

[kragen]

Yes, I agree.