Difference between purely and fully object oriented language ?

Question

Is python not a fully object oriented?

Answer 1

poonam panchal yeah both have difference read this post hope u will find answer

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/blogs/full-object-oriented-language-vs-pure-object-oriented-language1#:~:text=ex%3A%20JAVA%20is%20not%20a,%2C%20double)%20and%20wrapper%20class.&text=A%20language%20is%20called%20FULLY,primitive%20data%20types%20or%20not.

Answer 2

HonFu , Kiibo Ghayal, Okay I'll make sure that next time.
Thanks 🙏

Answer 3

There is a slight difference between the two. A programming language with 4 pillars of OOP could be considered a fully OOP language but for it to be treated as a purely OOP language, everything must be treated as objects including the primitive types as well. Python does that so you can call it a purely OOP language.

A purely OOP language could be considered a fully OOP language but the opposite need not be true.

Answer 4

Hacker Badshah, and again, you quote but make it seem as if you wrote the text.

Source:

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-not-purely-object-oriented-language/

Please don't do that!

When you copypaste something, make clear that it's not your words, and share the link.

Answer 5

Yeah, absolutely. 😂

However, it also somewhat highlights the futility of all these overly precise definitions.

It's like when we ponder if HTML is a programming language or not:

There are arguments for and arguments against it, but in the end, what is it good for except for memes?

As long as you understand what HTML can do (outlay the structure of a homepage) and what it can't do (hack NASA), it doesn't really matter how exactly you categorize it.

Answer 6

Python supports most of the terms associated with "objected-oriented" programming language except strong encapsulation. It is not completely Object oriented because Guido never believed in hiding things and that is the only simple philosophy behind it.

Source:https://www.edureka.co/community/31489/is-python-fully-object-oriented

Thank You ☺️

Answer 7

Then there's the problem that there is no privacy in Python. If you know where to look, you can write into your classes and instances and pull stuff out.

So although Python can be considered purely OOP (because everything is an object), it can't be considered fully OOP, because one of the pillars is missing. 😉

You shouldn't obsess about that sort of definition issues. Important is to understand what the idea of OOP is, what's it good for and then judge and apply each language for what it can and can not do.

Answer 8

HonFu Surely Python is an exception falling under that category, it's weird at times. 😉

Answer 9

HonFu so true 😂

Answer 10

There are seven qualities to be satisfied for a programming language to be pure Object Oriented. They are:

Encapsulation/Data Hiding

Inheritance

Polymorphism

Abstraction

All predefined types are objects

All user defined types are objects

All operations performed on objects must be only through methods exposed at the objects.

Source:https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/java-not-purely-object-oriented-language/

May It Helps You!

Answer 11

I found an ans on edureka ,another on geeksfor geeks but ,they both are confusing. So I am asking is there a difference between purely and full object oriented .

Answer 12

**I'd** define fully object oriented language as a language that has all _features_ of OOP and purely object oriented languages as a language that just has OOP concepts. It doesn't have to have all _features_, just required ones to be able to do OOP. You can have functions as first class objects for do some FP stuff but pure object oriented can't do many things proper FP languages like Haskell. (that's just my guess, maybe Monads?🤔)

Answer 13

What Russian?