IBM Joins OpenJDK Community
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Oct 2010 21:52 UTC
Java "Oracle and IBM today announced that the companies will collaborate to allow developers and customers to build and innovate based on existing Java investments and the OpenJDK reference implementation. Specifically, the companies will collaborate in the OpenJDK community to develop the leading open source Java environment."
E-mail Print r 2   64 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ifs
Thread beginning with comment 444894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why all the fuss about Java?
by drstorm on Wed 13th Oct 2010 10:03 UTC in reply to "Why all the fuss about Java?"
drstorm
Member since:
2009-04-24

In case some of you were asleep during your CS lectures, you can develop reusable software in plain C, using object oriented paradigm.

You were awake when they said that C is not object-oriented, right?

Such arrogance and no knowledge to back it up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

rom508 Member since:
2007-04-20

I have enough knowledge to know that you don't need object-oriented language in order to use objects.

Reply Parent Score: 1

fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I have enough knowledge to know that you don't need object-oriented language in order to use objects.


I agree, gnome and Win32-API (and cuh... cuh... Motif) are very clear object oriented design implemented in C.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Read more of this thread... >
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Such arrogance and no knowledge to back it up.


I'd suggest you take a couple of basic C courses, as your comment was -way- of the mark.

Nothing stops from implementing objects in pure C. Come to think about it, more-or-less any language that support functions, complex storage [e.g. arrays] and callback functions, can implement objects.
Heck, I can even implement objects (including inheritance) in BASH or assembly!

Now, whether -you- consider that true object oriented language (as it requires some additional foot work to implement objects), is irrelevant.

... I'd think twice before calling someone arrogant.
(Keep in mind that I don't really agree with the OP)

- Gilboa

Edited 2010-10-13 13:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Nothing stops me from implementing objects in pure C?

Well, of course I knew that, but what's your point?

OO paradigm is a super-set of procedural programming, thus it is obvious that the same functionality can be achieved in a procedural language.

In a broader sense, any currently used paradigm can be implemented in an assembler, but does that mean that we should use assemblers for everything?

The question is why would you bother to use C to emulate C++ (unless you have to for some reason, e.g. for backward compatibility or to work around compiler limitations)?

Now, whether -you- consider that true object oriented language (as it requires some additional foot work to implement objects), is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because it is not a matter of opinion. C is not object-oriented. Period.

Besides, that OO-C thing is just the bit that caught my eye. When someone claims that C is the way to go for web development, I naturally assume that they don't have a clue. Call it a prejudice, but I'm rarely wrong.

In the world where web apps are barely secure even though they are written in high level languages like Java, the last thing we need it to return to buffer overflows, dangling pointers, etc.

Edited 2010-10-13 14:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

You can still use object oriented concepts in a language which doesn't (strictly speaking) support objects. C is a great example of one of those languages.

If you really want to, you can even create a sort of object in C, using a structure with data and pointers to functions.

Granted, if you're doing so, it's probably best to switch to C++...

Reply Parent Score: 2