uhh sort of?

It has classes, but the classes are syntax sugar for the same prototype nonsense as was always a bad idea, just a bit harder to footgun

It does have modules but that’s not what people actually use most of the time exactly. Usually people use the module syntax but still use a built tool like webpack to assemble everything into a single bundle

This is for a whole bunch of reasons not the least of which is that the spec for module syntax and the spec for what it actually does and how it loads were split up and a shitshow and arrived years apart (and I’m still not sure how concrete the latter is)

I have the impression that back in the day this was a pretty accurate reflection of much of Java. Which is also a big part of the reason why people came to loathe OOP, since they thought that was its logical conclusion.

I came up with a conspiracy theory about this the other day: Google starts new things to get people rushing in and handing over their valuable data (Google’s actual money maker). Eventually when the flood of people rushing in turns into a trickle and they think they have extracted most of the value already, they kill the project and start the process again.

I think the more likely story is that Google is just the first direct-to-consumer company of this scale. When I was at $ENORMOUS_COMPANY we killed projects all the time, but it rarely affected people who were particularly at liberty to complain about it on Twitter. And IBM probably can’t kill projects as often as people who work there might like, because there’s invariably some deep-pocketed client who is paying them not to do that. $ENORMOUS_COMPANY was probably one of them for some bits of mainframe software.

I should probably note that I doubt the conspiracy theory is actually true (though I can’t entirely rule it out as a possibility) :stuck_out_tongue:

I am also firmly convinced that Java is not an object-oriented language. It gives you all the tools you need to do object-oriented programming, but the standard library is intensely procedural and will fight you every step of the way if you try to get too OOP about things.

I’m pretty sure you and Java have different definitions of OOP :stuck_out_tongue:

Java thinks that the mere presence of a collection of objects somewhere in the same postal code makes the application object-oriented. I think that “oriented” is not, strictly speaking, a synonym for “having”.