Can't resist a bit of nerdery :-)
If I'm not mistaken, this is bumping up against the differences between what happens (in Java) at compile-time vs. what happens at runtime. Static method calls in Java are always resolved at compile-time. Overridden methods, on the other hand, are decided on at runtime. So you can't do polymorphism with static methods—by the time you run the code, it's already been decided what method a particular invocation is going to call.
Javascript does have primitives, and doesn't have classes, but it certainly does have objects, and it's not unreasonable to call it object-oriented. Not sure I'd hold it up as a paradigm of OO-ness though.
Is OO still regarded as all that great a paradigm in general? I've been hanging out with functional languages for a while, so my perspective is skewed ;-).
Hugh
On Feb 21, 2013, at 13:21 , Benjamin Armintor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If this thread is just code nerdery: You can't override static methods in
> Java. It looks like you can because there's a generous search for
> statically bound names (if B extends A, and A defines static a(), B.a()
> works), but it's not the overriding mechanism because if you try to refer
> to super in an "overriding" implementation, the compiler stops you (it's
> not bound). This also suggests that classes are not objects, but that the
> reflection API cheats a little to make them appear to be so.
>
> I always thought Javascript both had primitives and was more functional
> than OO, given the Prototype inheritance stuff, the fact that objects are
> really hashes, and the fact that constructors are functions. Ruby, though:
> totally OO. Except when it's not.
>
> - Ben
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Adam Wead <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'm finding this thread very enlightening. I've only had a
>> little java experience, but always assumed it was the ur-implementation of
>> OO principles. Now, I've had that assumption corrected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> …adam
>>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Ian Walls <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. Each language has its own strengths and weaknesses. Pick the
>> one that works best for your situation, factoring in not only what the
>> application needs to do, but your and your team's level of experience, and
>> the overall community context in which the project will live. The
>> peculiarities of a given languages truth tables, for example, can easily
>> get washed out of the calculation when you consider what languages you know
>> and what platforms your institution supports.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Ethan Gruber
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:45 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] You are a *pedantic* coder. So what am I?
>>>
>>> Look, I'm sure we can list the many ways different languages fail to
>> meet our expectations, but is this really a constructive line of
>> conversation?
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Justin Coyne
>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did misspeak a bit. You can override static methods in Java. My
>>>> major issue is that there is no "getClass()" within a static method,
>>>> so when the static method is being run in the context of the
>>>> inheriting class it is unaware of its own run context.
>>>>
>>>> For example: I want the output to be "Hi from bar", but it's "Hi from
>> foo":
>>>>
>>>> class Foo {
>>>> public static void sayHello() {
>>>> hi();
>>>> }
>>>> public static void hi() {
>>>> System.out.println("Hi from foo");
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> class Bar extends Foo {
>>>>
>>>> public static void hi() {
>>>> System.out.println("Hi from bar");
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> class Test {
>>>> public static void main(String [ ] args) {
>>>> Bar.sayHello();
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Eric Hellman <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK, pedant, tell us why you think methods that can be over-ridden
>>>>> are static.
>>>>> Also, tell us why you think classes in Java are not instances of
>>>>> java.lang.Class
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 18, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Justin Coyne
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To be pedantic, Ruby and JavaScript are more Object Oriented than
>>>>>> Java because they don't have primitives and (in Ruby's case)
>>>>>> because classes
>>>>> are
>>>>>> themselves objects. Unlike Java, both Python and Ruby can properly
>>>>>> override of static methods on sub-classes. The Java language made
>>>>>> many compromises as it was designed as a bridge to Object Oriented
>>>> programming
>>>>>> for programmers who were used to writing C and C++.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Justin
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> This communication is a confidential and proprietary business
>> communication. It is intended solely for the use of the designated
>> recipient(s). If this communication is received in error, please contact
>> the sender and delete this communication.
>>
