oh dear-

pardon my ignorance but,
class user{
private $user_id;
private $user_name;
public function __construct($user_id) {
$this -> user_id=$user_id;
$this -> user_name = $result['username'];

what is '$this ->'

>>23
Java seriously halfassed every bit of OO. int isn't an object, for example. You can't subclass it, you can't do shit with it. You have to use that stupidass Integer wrapper class and then write everything with fucking verbose function names because Java also doesn't have any sort of operator overriding.

Since half the fucking standard library has totally different methods for everything, and it's all halfassed shit, you can't e.g. pass a TCP connection to a method that's expecting something opened from a file stream and expect it to work sanely. In order to do anything like that you usually have to write a bunch of fucking wrapper classes on top of the standard library to make up for the fact that it sucks dicks.

Try using a proper OO language some time and you'll notice that it's actually not completely hellish to work with. Until then, shut the fuck up about Java being OO, because it's not, it's a pile of monkey shit.

Oh, and C++ isn't fucking OO either, it's just badly duct-taped-together half-OO shit.

>>24
>>25
That was a very interesting troll to read, however I think you forgot to take something into account. How easy it is to use a language has no effect on, and is not effected by whether or not it is Object Oriented.

>>26
Yes, C is a very easy language to use. However, you're sidestepping the issue, which is that Java's OO is seriously fucking retarded and crippled.

>>27
Not at all. The issue was that you believed Java was not an Object Oriented language. I corrected your mistake, and now you are trying to tell me that I am sidestepping "the issue" that Java is not a very good Object Oriented language. One lesson is enough for you today.

>>23
Your attempt at impersonating a /prog/ regular by using the (incorrectly uncapitalized) word ``Sepples'' falls flat on account of your mistaken belief that /prog/ has a hard-on for it, when in fact its dislike for it has been well-documented. I presume you were confused by the homework threads the /pr/ overflow has been creating.
Mistaking Common Lisp for Scheme didn't help either. All Lisps are not created equal.

To answer your question, though, Smalltalk is a decent example of an OO language. For a more mainstream one, Ruby is defensible.

>>26
Oh, look, you can't even quote properly. >>24 has a more coherent argument than you do, though it may be poorly delivered. It is undoubtedly true that the shittiness of Java's standard library is a result of its broken object model, and the way it has and handles primitives is a good example of why Java is not an OO language.
Java's broken model is an improvement if you're coming from even crappier languages like Sepples or, indeed, PHP, but once you've used a real OO language it becomes painfully apparent how incredibly broken it is.

Not that it would matter to you; you barely made it into the second semester of ``Software Engineering'' at your community college.

>>28
It is you who need lessons.

>>29
your mistaken belief that /prog/ has a hard-on for it [sepples] when in fact its dislike for it has been well-documented.
Ironic you would use this to show I am not a ``regular'' when in fact it has been well documented /prog/ is Tsundere for sepples.

Mistaking Common Lisp for Scheme didn't help either.
Just throw that in there to beef up your argument did you? Common Lisp is a perfect example of what elitist Object Oriented programmers use.

24 has a more coherent argument than you do
The mere fact it is coherent and possibly a good argument does nothing for the fact it is an ignoratio elenchi.

you barely made it into the second semester of ``Software Engineering'' at your community college.
Argumentum ad hominem, lovely. I'll tell you what- I can one up all of this:

You seem like Hitler and I bet you support killing Jews. Your argument is invalid.

>>31
1/10. Persisting in your ignorance would have been a nice touch in a successful troll, but your comment too obviously lacks substance.

>>24-33
Same person, and we have bean rolled constantly.