Comment by dpark
5 hours ago
To be clear, I’m not trying to pick at whether or not C++ is “really object oriented”.
What I’m saying is that the discrepancy between primitives in C++ and Java is entirely one of definition. Java didn’t actually change this. Java just admitted that “objects” that don’t behave like objects aren’t.
On the contrary, Java objects are very different from C++ objects, precisely because they lack a lot of the "primitive-like" features of C++ objects such as copying, embedding as fields, and embedding in arrays. (I'm tempted to mention operator overloading, but that's just syntactic sugar.)
Java differs from C++ in an endless number of ways.
What I’m saying is that in both C++ and Java, there are a set of primitive types that do not participate in the “object-orientedness”. C++ primitives do not have class definitions and cannot be the base of any class. This is very much like Java where primitives exist outside the object system.
If the C++ standard used the term “entities” instead of “objects” I don’t think this would even be a point of discussion.
It's not some minor point of terminology.
The entire design of C++ is built around eliminating all distinctions between primitive "entities" and user-defined "entities" in a way that Java just isn't. It's true that you can't inherit from integers, but that's one of very few differences. User-defined "entities" don't (necessarily) have vtables, don't have to be heap-allocated, can overload operators, can prevent subclassing, don't necessarily inherit from a common base class, etc.
C++'s strange definition of "object" is a natural result of this pervasive design objective, but changing the terminology to "entity" wouldn't change it.
5 replies →