Is C# is fully object oriented or not?

[Peter Leow]

Read this: is-c-sharp-a-100-object-oriented-programming-language[^]

[OriginalGriff]

Yes.

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)

[BillWoodruff]

Well, I think that all depends on how you define what an OO Language is. If you met someone at Xerox Parc in the 1970's who programmed in SmallTalk, and showed them the C# Language specification, they might say C# is not a full OO Language because it doesn't support "true" multiple-inheritance, and it distinguishes value Types from reference Types. But, that same person would probably also say that Java, Ruby, and Python, are not OO Languages. But, if you ask the question as: "Is C# an object-oriented language ?:" then, I would say: "yes," because you can't do squat in C# without creating and using objects; and, yes, because C# supports the key-features of object-oriented languages, including classes, and inheritance.

“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet

[Soul Search]

Yes C# is fully Object Oriented as the basis of C# depends solely on classes and objects as is the case with other OO Languages like Java. There is difference in functionality provided by the two languages but the basic structure is quite similar. Regards, Kamal Soul Search

[BobJanova]

That's not really an answer as apparently SO can't agree! Personally I'd say that it is almost 100% OO, everything in C# is an object, even primitive types ... except methods and classes, which can easily be manipulated into object types (Delegate and Type respectively), but which are not actually objects in and of themselves.

[Lost User]

What exactly do you mean by "fully object oriented"? That doesn't seem to be a well-defined term.

[Wayne Gaylard]

Please can you define what you mean by well-defined term . :-D

Everyone dies - but not everyone lives

[Lost User]

Oh you :-D

[OriginalGriff]

See recursion.

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)

[Wayne Gaylard]

Recursion.[^]

Everyone dies - but not everyone lives

[lukeer]

Not fully recoursive. This is.

Ciao, luker

[Wayne Gaylard]

Ok - you win!

Everyone dies - but not everyone lives

[pradeep surya]

C# is object oriented.

[Pete OHanlon]

As Bill points out, just how OO is it? Does the fact that it allows static methods and objects adhere to OO tenets?

[Pete OHanlon]

You have several excellent answers here, but I will throw a one into the mix - is a language that supports static methods and objects fully object oriented? Does that fit into a classical definition of OO?