[chriswarbo]

> I don't think the article condemns OOP in any way except when it becomes a religious dogma that everything needs to be an object, as it is in Java.

But Java doesn't make everything an object. The obvious one is that 'primitive types' aren't objects (int, bool, float, etc.), but also Java has hard-wired control structures (for, while, if, try, etc.) which aren't OO (compare to Smalltalk, for example; where "ifTrue" is a method of boolean objects, "each" is a method of collection objects and "times" is a method of number objects). Also its classes and methods aren't objects, like they are in Smalltalk, Python, etc.

I would argue that that Python's first-class classes and first-class functions/methods makes it much more 'religiously OO' than Java.

Just because all code must be in a class, doesn't mean that everything in Java is an object. I don't know why people keep saying that.

[bad_user]

My favorite in Java are String instances, which are objects, but adding them with + is not a method call, because Strings are also primitives, sort of, hence + is in fact either eliminated (if adding two constant values) or the code gets translated to a concatenation powered by an ad-hoc StringBuilder instance. The JVM doesn't even pretend that a static method was invoked. It simply pukes some bytecode.

For example there is no interface in Java that you can use to add stuff, because from the language's point of view, adding integers is totally different from adding strings which is also totally different from adding BigIntegers, which is totally different from adding BigDecimals. Well, to be pedantic, Strings addition is in fact concatenation, as Strings are in fact Lists of Chars. I know, not fair to put them in the same bucket.

But, but, wait for it - BigDecimal and BigInteger actually do implement a Number class. But apparently Numbers in Java's vision are not even monoids, let alone rings (because duh, you also have multiplication). Let's not even mention that all real numbers have natural ordering. Like seriously, how can one get this so wrong?

Coupled with the explicit typing needed and the lack of type-classes or anything similar, it means that you simply can't write functions that operate on Numbers, as there is no such thing and you can't implement it by yourself.

People that bitch about Java being too OOP, missed a couple of lessons on their way to enlightenment.

[cbsmith]

Just once I'd like to see someone lament the "not everything should have to be an object" using as an example a language where everything actually is an object.