You probably found an article by a
Smalltalk enthusiast. Don't let it
bother you. No, I guess java  isn't
a "pure" OO language. Depending on
what you read, in a "pure" OO language:

1. Everything is an object. Java
has primitives such as integers and
characters which are not objects.

2. All objects are atomic entities,
i.e., indivisible. In Java, C++,
etc, objects are records (structures).
You can access internal members.

3. Objects have meaning only in
context of other objects. This
pretty much eliminates any early-binding
language as being pure  00.

But I think all this is so much
intellectual tripe. If you want to
get REALLY picky, it's not possible
make truly atomic objects with any
real computer, so being that picky,
there is NO pure 00 language.

And being "pure" doesn't make it
practical. Making everything an
object and doing all binding at runtime
results in something that is
unreasonably processor-intensive and
prone to programming errors that are
difficult to track down. In my book,
pure or not, you can't get a much
better language than Java.