How long did it take you guys?

[Belisarius]

It can use JNI to call native methods.

But that defeats one of the central characteristics of Java, which is code portablity. So yes, you can do anything through JNI, but at that point you have to ask yourself, "Why aren't I doing this in C?" Plus, I'm not familiar with the overhead of calling native code.

Java can never beat c for speed; its guaranteed.

Guaranteed by what? And Java Forums are kinda handy, but I don't put too much stock in the analysis done in them, as it's usually pop-Computer Science. Fun stuff to discuss, but that's about it.

I'm not going to argue that Java is faster than C in general, just that it sounds like the speed improvements that Sun has made will make the differences trivial in the next HotSpot. Again, I'm reserving judgement until they do a full release. Yes, there will still be inefficient code in Java (Hashtable and Vector come to mind), but Sun is introducing new datastructures to replace them. Besides, they aren't an indication of the nature of the language itself.

[Pizzaman]

I've never learned C++ on my own. It's through college. The concept of C++ is not that difficult, but I heard it is a horrible language to use for teaching proposes.

It's moderate, pay attention to HOW things work, like inheritence and polymorphism... and HOW the computer links them up.

-Pizzaman

[Valmont]

And Java Forums are kinda handy, but I don't put too much stock in the analysis done in them...

Same goes for me from now on:
I've read on Java sites that Java doesn't have inherritance, I also read that Java lecturers called Java OBP not OOP. Hence the most remarkable conclusion of me that Java isn't OOP but OBP, two days ago.

Yesterday I asked a friend for some code... No wonder I got these remarks here.

[Dante Shamest]

OBP (object-based programming) and OOP (object-oriented programming) are just buzzwords. When Bill Gates and Microsoft designed Windows in C, they were more concerned about thinking in an object-oriented way then working with an object-oriented language.

There a certain amount of OOP and OBP in any programming language. Its more important how the programmer thinks.

[Valmont]

The fact that MS Windows has something to do with OOD, doesn't mean that the subject OOD has something to do with MS Windows.
Most companies try to make a design that lowers their cost somehow. OOD is one way of them, wich many companies use.

OBP (object-based programming) and OOP (object-oriented programming) are just buzzwords

No way.
In the 80's there was a software crisis. Organisations and companies needed a system to overcome problems (and limitations) that arose with procedural languages. According to Booch (1987), Software Engineering with Ada. 2nd Ed. these problems were by several orders of magnitude. That I don't know. But OOD is certainly not just a buzzword.

Poeple interested in this subject might find this book interesting:
Booch, Grady. Object-Oriented Design With Applications
There is also a 2nd Ed. I never read that one, but I know it exists.

[Dante Shamest]

The fact that MS Windows has something to do with OOD, doesn't mean that the subject OOD has something to do with MS Windows.

It was an example of the point I was making. You can program in an OO way in a procedural language, or program in a procedural way in an OO language. It depends on the programmer's level of experience with OO, and whether he can apply OO concepts to the matter at hand.

No way.

Yes way. The dictionary defines a buzzword as "a stylish or trendy word or phrase."

Its hip to be OO now, even though OO originated in the 60s with Alan Kay and the Smalltalk programming language. It didn't catch much fire then, because they didn't have Sun or Microsoft to market OO.

[Valmont]

Just about every new way of thinking (accompanied by the language) needs ten years or so before it is widely adopted. And almost every new language needs a big spender to find its place on the market. So maybe OO was adopted because of Sun or Microsoft. That's the way it often works. It seems that they were the big spenders in this instance. And the time for it was finally there, there were problems to solve (late 70's and 80's) and OO had suddenly a reason to exist widely.

I agree if you say that the terms OOD and OOA are used sometimes a bit too easely. But that doesn't count for OOP I think. If one programs in a OO-based language, then one is automatically doing OOP. It's inherent to the language.

I do think that OO is used (and further developed and specialized) out of neccessity for lots of companies, not because it is primarily fashionable. For me, certain clothing styles or luxury goodies with their own phrases and all, are "buzzwords".

Doesn't mean that I think that the ways of objects is the answer. One day clever people will introduce a new concept. And ten years later it is a standard de facto.

...even though OO originated in the 60s with Alan Kay and the Smalltalk programming language...

No, Smalltalk wasn't the first one.
"The term object was first formally applied in the Simula language, and objects typically existed in Simula programs to simulate some aspect of reality" [Booch 94, p82].
Simula was in 1967. Booch referred to the additions to the algol 60 subset.