Is C# is fully object oriented or not?

[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?