I am surprised that it needs clarification, but yes it is a OOP.

Some languages are more OO (Smalltalk where there are no primitives),
but Java is indeed an OO language.

--> may be .... but you can program like in procedural language  in
--> Java as well ... so I would say ... Java have good support for OOP .. :)
(not OO
--> Language)

This article ("PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAMMING") might help explain why.

www.citr.auckland.ac.nz/.../supl101-1\
.html

Not the way I see it. Java has primitive constructs, which are not OOP.

Additionally, it has static class members, which I don't consider to be OOP
either.

I understand that the next revision to the language  will provide transparent
wrappers for the primitives - making them essentially indistinguishable from
objects - but it hasn't got them yet.

Java is reasonably close to OOP, but not 100%.

And a good thing too, probably. Pure OOP languages aren't exactly taking the
world by storm.

Both Static members and primitive constructs are additions to the
language to speed things up, and make things more efficient. The Java
police are not going to come to your place of work if you decide to make
every single int an Integer.

Seeing that Static members are not forced (in the nature of the
language) and there are Object representations of all primitives, I
wouldn't feel confident taking those facts into a debate.

Java is OO ... it just has primitives (and static members) as well.

Lastly if SmallTalk had come out a little later, or if Sun had decided
to modify SmallTalk instead of making its own language  then things could
be vastly different.

The reason there are primiatives in the language  is to enable the
programmer a choice, 'do I need to use a object here or a primitave',
often you do not require a object, so you choose something that will
consume less memory.

I don't mind the choice, but I dislike the convolutions needed to move between
them. The next version sounds as though it will fix that.

I think java  just like other programming langguage (including .Net), but
it guide us to think in object concept, b'cos if we can mastered the it we
can develop java to variuos application ex:desktop, mobile, web, etc. i
think that's why Java is OOP and the static attrib and method is a class
mamber that can be known as a class indantity which is final(constant).

If we're really picky (and also if you agree with me that static members are not
OOP), it isn't possible to actually write a fully OOP program in Java. The
"main" method gets in the way.

Leaving that aside, it is possible to avoid the primitives and just use the
objects, although I doubt that many people do.

I don't believe that this makes Java 100% OO, but it does mean that you can use
it in an OO manner. Regardless, of course, it's fairly close.

Yes, it is _almost_ pure OOP language.

Some parts of it are not pure OOP because it also has
the concept of primitives for basic datatypes like
int, char etc. However, you can still wrap these in
objects like java.lang.Integer

Gurus on the list may point out other places where it
is not fully OO.

Java offers mechanisms to create objects and methods to design
interfaces for those objects to communicate.

The java  language provides mechanisms to enforce the Object Oriented
model by defining encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism.

So we can say that Java is an Object Oriented language. But, still
there many debates saying it is not OOP.

Refer some of these sites. These are some of very good discussions on
whether Java is OOP or not...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IsJavaObjectOriented

saloon.javaranch.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?
ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000146

i m not sure but i can give u the reason ,why java  is
not pure oop.
reason is simple, java has premitive data types which
are not objects.

Although primitive items are included, there are also Object alternitives.

Java is OO, but it also has primitives.

In the upcoming release of Java, there will remain no difference in
primitive data types & their object counter-parts. Java 1.5 will support
auto-boxing/unboxing, so to the programmer it will be same to use 'int'
or 'Integer'. You would be able to right:

int x = new Integer(7);
Integer y = x;
y++;

etc.....

Well, JAVA is purely based on OOPs terminology and
concepts, but JAVA is not purely OOPs that means not
100% OOPs. 100% OOPs is only .NET TECHNOLOGY.....

If u want to know that y JAVA is not 100% OOPs , reply
soon.I will mail u back

Did you just make the claim that .net is the only OOP technology set
that is OOP?

Dear, If you will work on .NET tech, than u will come
to know that .NET is completely OOPs Based, bcoz the
primitives we defined in JAVA, i.e. int, char , float
and double etc are not directly called from classes
and in .NET we convert them using their class ojects
and then use it in our program.

Well, i am not in this group to claim anything.I told
wht I know.thats it

This is what you said;

> Well, JAVA is purely based on OOPs terminology and
> concepts, but JAVA is not purely OOPs that means not
> 100% OOPs. 100% OOPs is only .NET TECHNOLOGY.....

This looks like you state that the only OOP language  is anything written
in .NET, not if it was OO.

As for Java being OO or not; If Java only had primtive representations
of ints, chars, doubles, floats and so on then you would be right. It
wouldn't be a pure OOP language. But Java doesn't only have primtive
represntations of those items, it also contains Objects of those items.

Java is OO and it also has primitives.

java is 100% OOP............................

smalltalk is the one that u are looking for.

I dont think that dotnet is pure OOP. dotnet is a full MOP language.

(MOP = Microsoft Oriented Programming :)