> > > > >Well, if SuperCollider is based on SmallTalk, then yes it would be OO. > > >SmallTalk is considered to be one of the first OO languages, from >whence > > >most others model themselves. I think the only thing that makes > > >SmallTalk more "OO" than Java is that it also abstracts all of the > > >primitive data types into Objects. > > > > FYI: Java also wraps its primitive data types into objects as well. > >Yes, but it really was only done to provide faster low-level operations >rather than having to do everything in the "slower" OO fashion. You >don't need to "wrap" or "unwrap" the objects to get at their data. I >think this was a concious design decision on the part of Mr. Gosling. > >Mike
The object versions of int, double, long, char, etc (named Int, Double, Long, Char, etc.) were introduced so that primitives could be easily stored and manpulated in an OO fashion via java collections/containers (which require java.lang.Object). I didn't intend to rabbit trail this thread on Java basics. I simply wanted to point out that your original statement was not quite correct regarding the lack of primitive data type objects in Java. Dustin Dustin Barlow http://www.dustinbarlow.net _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
