3

Java is considered an OOP language, despite it not quite being purely OOP. Java contains 8 primitives, and in an interview, James Gosling explains why:

Bill Venners: Why are there primitive types in Java? Why wasn't everything just an object?

James Gosling: Totally an efficiency thing. There are all kinds of people who have built systems where ints and that are all objects. There are a variety of ways to do that, and all of them have some pretty serious problems. Some of them are just slow, because they allocate memory for everything. Some of them try to do objects where sometimes they are objects, sometimes they are not (which is what the standard LISP system did), and then things get really weird. It kind of works, but it's strange.

So it seems that both memory and speed are issues that Java's primitives solve. However, this got me wondering how can a language be true, pure object-oriented?

If only a byte primitive existed, you could build from there. Creating integers, chars and eventually floats and doubles. But without any base structure at all, how could you build anything? Isn't at least some base primitive necessary? In other words, isn't a base data-structure needed in to expand from?

ND523
  • 159
  • 8
EthanBar
  • 667
  • 1
  • 9
  • 24
  • If I’m not mistaken, everything is an Object in Kotlin. There’s var and val keywords and type inference from there. – ND523 Oct 19 '17 at 04:50
  • @ND523 Everything appears as an object in Kotlin, but the compiler maps them to JVM primitives when at all possible to save memory [source](https://discuss.kotlinlang.org/t/primitive-types-in-the-type-hierarchy/1519) – EthanBar Oct 19 '17 at 04:52
  • JavaScript is another example where all primitives are really objects. E.g. `let a = 4; tyeof a;` ("number") `a.toFixed(2)` ("4.00"). toFixed is an instance method of the Number type / class. Even literals are "wrapped" into their type class: `(42).toFixed(2)` ("42.00") or `"test string".toUpperCase()` ("TEST STRING") – marekful Oct 19 '17 at 04:55
  • 2
    I looks like Javascript still [has primitives](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Primitive) but can be [coerced into an object](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7675127/is-string-a-primitive-type-or-object-in-javascript) in a fraction of a second to allow use of properties and methods. They still are primitives, and the object is immediately disposed upon it's use. – EthanBar Oct 19 '17 at 05:00
  • @EthanBar I see what you’re looking for. You might want to clarify that in the question. – ND523 Oct 19 '17 at 13:39

1 Answers1

5

If you're asking if there are languages that have no way to interact with primitive types, then you might want to look at something like Scala. From that page:

Scala is a pure object-oriented language in the sense that every value is an object.

However, as you point out (for Kotlin):

the compiler maps them to JVM primitives when at all possible to save memory

If your definition of what object-oriented languages can be requires that everything is always represented as an object, then a purely object-oriented language is impossible. You can't build a language that runs on a real computer that only has objects. This is because the computer must have a way to represent the data natively. This is essentially what primitives in object-oriented languages are: The native forms of data that the underlying computer (or VM) can represent. No matter what you do, you will always need to have some non-object representation of data in order for the computer to do operations with it. Even if you built a JavaScript interpreter that really represented primitives as objects, in order to add two integers, the interpreter would have to have load the integers into CPU registers and use some form of an add instruction.

But that explanation sort of misses the point of object-oriented programming. A programming language is not the same as a program. Languages are just a tool for us to make computers do what we want - they don't actually exist at runtime. You would probably say that a program written in Kotlin or Scala is more object-oriented than a program written in C, despite both languages compiling to the same assembly instructions at runtime.

So, if you relax your definition of pure object-oriented programming to no longer be concerned with what the runtime representation of data is, then you'll find that purely object-oriented languages are possible. When programming Scala, you never interact with anything that's not an object. Even if your Int becomes a 'primitive' at runtime, it doesn't really matter, because you, as the programmer, never really have to think about that (at least, in an ideal world where performance and memory never matter). The language definition of Scala doesn't include the concept of primitives at all - they are part of the implementation of the language, not the language itself.

As far your example of Java goes, Java probably isn't a purely object-oriented language by most definitions. It is, however, mostly object-oriented. Java is often mentioned as the de facto object oriented language because it was much more object oriented than what came before it.

Even further, the term object-oriented doesn't really have a definitive meaning. To some people it might mean that everything has to be an object, and to others it might just mean that there need to be objects, some definitions require the concept of classes, some don't, etc.

ebu_sho
  • 394
  • 6
  • 17
Spaceman1701
  • 413
  • 5
  • 13
  • Thank you for the detailed explanation. I like your point that a language is defined by what it appears as to it's writer, not by what it abstracts away. – EthanBar Oct 23 '17 at 01:52