Why Scala introduces lazy parameters. Shouldn't it be managed by the JVM (invisible for the user) how the value is initialized? What is the real world use case in which it is worth to give the control into developers hand and define values as lazy?
The by-name parameters: one of the primary motivations was to support dsls. They allow you to have a really nice syntax in APIs, that almost feel as if they're built into the language. For example, you can very easily define your own custom repeat-loop:
def repeat(body: =>Unit)(until: =>Boolean): Unit = {
body
if (until) {} else repeat(body)(until)
}
And then use it as if it were a part of the language.
var i = 0
repeat {
println(i)
i += 1
} (i < 3)
Or you could similarly spawn a new thread like this: spawn { println("on the new thread!") }, or you could do automatic resource management of your FileInputStreams like this: withFile("/home/john/.bashrc") { println(_.contents) }.
The lazy values - the motivations here are:
lazy data-structures like Streams that are popular in functional languages that you can use to implement efficient data-structure a-la Okasaki's functional queues.
to avoid allocating or initializing some expensive resources if they're never used in some object, e.g. file handles or database connections.
to initialize objects fields in the correct order, for objects composed of many mixins.
to achieve a correct "initialize only once" semantics when there are many threads sharing a single value (see introduction here).
to have a translation scheme for nested singleton objects:
class A { object B }
becomes something like:
class A {
class A$B$
lazy val B = new A$B$
}
One common scenario is when the writer of a class does not know whether an expensive-to-initialize val will be used. In this case, the val is initialized on demand.
Another scenario is to organically control sequencing of initialization. Often an object is created long before a particular val can be initialized, because other classes haven't been initialized yet. In this case, laziness provides a convenient way for this sequencing to occur naturally, without the author coming up with a Master Plan that sequences a complex, multiphase initialization.
TLDR: because it freaks user out and due to performance reasons
Most of the today's languages are eager. Some of them are not and they called lazy. While many programming problems could be expressed in a beautiful and concise way through lazy evaluation, I don't think having absolute lazyness is a good idea. From subjective perspective programmers are used to think in a eager way (especially those who come from imperative lands) so naively written program in, say, Haskell may confuse you a lot. Having only forks for every possible dish is not so good as having a choice between fork and spoon and although scala support lazy evaluation on language level it defaults to eager model. The reason (besides personal choice of Martin and other language designers) is interop between Java and Scala -- it would be a nightmare to compose this two worlds in one language. Moreover, at the time of Scala design JVM was not there yet to support such features and more or less performant lazy vals were made possible only with introduction of method handles in Java 7 (just two years ago, whereas scala is there for a decade).
I will answer my own question. So one use case when lazy values are extremely useful is if you want to create an immutable data structure with cycles. What is not easy possible without laziness because otherwise you would have to modify an object which is already created. This is not possible if you want your objects were immutable. Let me use as an example the simple cycle implementation.
So in Scala you could implement this in the following way
class Node(inNode: => Node) { lazy val in = inNode }
lazy val node :Node = new Node(new Node(node))
This way you created an immutable cycle. You can verify the result by comparing the references.
scala> node.in
res3: Node = Node#2d928643
scala> node.in.in
res4: Node = Node#3a5ed7a6
scala> node
res5: Node = Node#3a5ed7a6
Related
I've got a fairly complicated project, which heavily uses Java's multithreading. In an answer to one of my previous questions I have described an ugly hack, which is supposed to overcome inherent inability to iterate over Java's ConcurrentHashMap in parallel. Although it works, I don't like ugly hacks, and I've had a lot of trouble trying to introduce proposed proof of concept in the real system. Trying to find an alternative solution I have encountered Scala's ParHashMap, which claims to implement a foreach method, which seems to operate in parallel. Before I start learning a new language to implement a single feature I'd like to ask the following:
1) Is foreach method of Scala's ParHashMap scalable?
2) Is it simple and straightforward to call Java's code from Scala and vice versa? I'll just remind that the code is concurrent and uses generics.
3) Is there going to be a performance penalty for switching a part of codebase to Scala?
For reference, this is my previous question about parallel iteration of ConcurrentHashMap:
Scalable way to access every element of ConcurrentHashMap<Element, Boolean> exactly once
EDIT
I have implemented the proof of concept, in probably very non-idiomatic Scala, but it works just fine. AFAIK it is IMPOSSIBLE to implement a corresponding solution in Java given the current state of its standard library and any available third-party libraries.
import scala.collection.parallel.mutable.ParHashMap
class Node(value: Int, id: Int){
var v = value
var i = id
override def toString(): String = v toString
}
object testParHashMap{
def visit(entry: Tuple2[Int, Node]){
entry._2.v += 1
}
def main(args: Array[String]){
val hm = new ParHashMap[Int, Node]()
for (i <- 1 to 10){
var node = new Node(0, i)
hm.put(node.i, node)
}
println("========== BEFORE ==========")
hm.foreach{println}
hm.foreach{visit}
println("========== AFTER ==========")
hm.foreach{println}
}
}
I come to this with some caveats:
Though I can do some things, I consider myself relatively new to Scala.
I have only read about but never used the par stuff described here.
I have never tried to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish.
If you still care what I have to say, read on.
First, here is an academic paper describing how the parallel collections work.
On to your questions.
1) When it comes to multi-threading, Scala makes life so much easier than Java. The abstractions are just awesome. The ParHashMap you get from a par call will distribute the work to multiple threads. I can't say how that will scale for you without a better understanding of your machine, configuration, and use case, but done right (particularly with regard to side effects) it will be at least as good as a Java implementation. However, you might also want to look at Akka to have more control over everything. It sounds like that might be more suitable to your use case than simply ParHashMap.
2) It is generally simple to convert between Java and Scala collections using JavaConverters and the asJava and asScala methods. I would suggest though making sure that the public API for your method calls "looks Java" since Java is the least common denominator. Besides, in this scenario, Scala is an implementation detail, and you never want to leak those anyway. So keep the abstraction at a Java level.
3) I would guess there will actually be a performance gain with Scala--at runtime. However, you will find much slower compile time (which can be worked around. ish). This Stack Overflow post by the author of Scala is old but still relevant.
Hope that helps. That's quite a problem you got there.
Since Scala compiles to the same bytecode as Java, doing the same in both languages is very well possible, no matter the task. There are however some things which are easier to solve in Scala, but if this is worth learning a new language is a different question. Especially since Java 8 will include exactly what you ask for: simple parallel execution of functions on lists.
But even now you can do this in Java, you just need to write what Scala already has on your own.
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
//...
final Entry<String, String>[] elements = (Entry<String, String>[]) myMap.entrySet().toArray();
final AtomicInteger index = new AtomicInteger(elements.length);
for (int i = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors(); i > 0; --i) {
executor.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
int myIndex;
while ((myIndex = index.decrementAndGet()) >= 0) {
process(elements[myIndex]);
}
}
});
}
The trick is to pull those elements into a temporary array, so threads can take out elements in a thread-safe way. Obviously doing some caching here instead of re-creating the Runnables and the array each time is encouraged, because the Runnable creation might already take longer than the actual task.
It is as well possible to instead copy the elements into a (reusable) LinkedBlockingQueue, then have the threads poll/take on it instead. This however adds more overhead and is only reasonable for tasks that require at least some calculation time.
I don't know how Scala actually works, but given the fact that it needs to run on the same JVM, it will do something similar in the background, it just happens to be easily accessible in the standard library.
I can't see the reason why the Boolean wrapper classes were made Immutable.
Why the Boolean Wrapper was not implemented like MutableBoolean in Commons lang which actually can be reset.
Does anyone have any idea/understanding about this ? Thanks.
Because 2 is 2. It won't be 3 tomorrow.
Immutable is always preferred as the default, especially in multithreaded situations, and it makes for easier to read and more maintainable code. Case in point: the Java Date API, which is riddled with design flaws. If Date were immutable the API would be very streamlined. I would know Date operations would create new dates and would never have to look for APIs that modify them.
Read Concurrency in Practice to understand the true importance of immutable types.
But also note that if for some reason you want mutable types, use AtomicInteger AtomicBoolean, etc. Why Atomic? Because by introducing mutability you introduced a need for threadsafety. Which you wouldn't have needed if your types stayed immutable, so in using mutable types you also must pay the price of thinking about threadsafety and using types from the concurrent package. Welcome to the wonderful world of concurrent programming.
Also, for Boolean - I challenge you to name a single operation that you might want to perform that cares whether Boolean is mutable. set to true? Use myBool = true. That is a re-assignment, not a mutation. Negate? myBool = !myBool. Same rule. Note that immutability is a feature, not a constraint, so if you can offer it, you should - and in these cases, of course you can.
Note this applies to other types as well. The most subtle thing with integers is count++, but that is just count = count + 1, unless you care about getting the value atomically... in which case use the mutable AtomicInteger.
Wrapper classes in Java are immutable so the runtime can have only two Boolean objects - one for true, one for false - and every variable is a reference to one of those two. And since they can never be changed, you know they'll never be pulled out from under you. Not only does this save memory, it makes your code easier to reason about - since the wrapper classes you're passing around you know will never have their value change, they won't suddenly jump to a new value because they're accidentally a reference to the same value elsewhere.
Similarly, Integer has a cache of all signed byte values - -128 to 127 - so the runtime doesn't have to have extra instances of those common Integer values.
Patashu is the closest. Many of the goofy design choices in Java were because of the limitations of how they implemented a VM. I think originally they tried to make a VM for C or C++ but it was too hard (impossible?) so made this other, similar language. Write one, run everywhere!
Any computer sciency justification like those other dudes spout is just after-the-fact folderal. As you now know, Java and C# are evolving to be as powerful as C. Sure, they were cleaner. Ought to be for languages designed decade(s) later!
Simple trick is to make a "holder" class. Or use a closure nowadays! Maybe Java is evolving into JavaScript. LOL.
Boolean or any other wrapper class is immutable in java. Since wrapper classes are used as variables for storing simple data, those should be safe and data integrity must be maintained to avoid inconsistent or unwanted results. Also, immutability saves lots of memory by avoiding duplicate objects. More can be found in article Why Strings & Wrapper classes are designed immutable in java?
Recent events on the blogosphere have indicated that a possible performance problem with Scala is its use of closures to implement for.
What are the reasons for this design decision, as opposed to a C or Java-style "primitive for" - that is one which will be turned into a simple loop?
(I'm making a distinction between Java's for and its "foreach" construct here, as the latter involves an implicit Iterator).
More detail, following up from Peter. This bit of Scala:
object ScratchFor {
def main(args : Array[String]) : Unit = {
for (val s <- args) {
println(s)
}
}
}
creates 3 classes: ScratchFor$$anonfun$main$1.class ScratchFor$.class ScratchFor.class
ScratchFor::main just forwards to the companion object, ScratchFor$.MODULE$::main which spins up an ScratchFor$$anonfun$main$1 (which is an implementation of AbstractFunction1).
It's in the apply() method of this anonymous inner impl of AbstractFunction1 that the actual code lives, which is effectively the loop body.
I don't see HotSpot being able to rewrite this into a simple loop. Happy to be proved wrong on this, though.
Traditional for loops are clumsy, verbose and error-prone. I think it is proof enough of this that "for-each" loops where added to Java, C# and C++, but if you want more details you may check item 46 of Effective Java.
Now, for-each loops are still much faster than Scala for-comprehension, but they are also much less powerful (and more clumsy) because they cannot return values. If you want to transform or filter a collection (or do both to a group of collections), you'll still have to handle all the mechanical details of constructing the result collection in addition to computing the values. Not to mention it inevitably uses some mutable state.
Finally, even though for-each loops are adequate enough for collections, they are not suited to other monadic classes (of which collections are a subset of).
So Scala has a general method which takes care of all of the above. Yes, it is slower, but the goal is to have the compiler effectively optimise it well enough so that this doesn't become a hindrance (and, of course, JIT could help here as well).
That has not been accomplished to this date, but -optimise has reduced a lot of ground between common for-each loops and for-comprehensions on the latest versions of Scala. If performance is essential, you can always use while or tail recursion.
Now, it would be possibly for Scala to have common for loops or for-each loops as special cases specifically targeted at performance issues (since for-comprehensions can do everything they do). However, that violates two principles that guide Scala's design:
Reduce complexity. Yes, contrary to what some say, that is a design goal, and special cases that serve no other purpose other than optimise performance -- even though a workable solution exists for performance cases -- would needlessly increase the complexity of the language.
Scalability. This is in the sense that the use can scale the language for any size of problem by writing libraries. The point here is that having the compiler optimise one particular class, such as Range, would make it impossible for the user to create a replacement class that would perform just as well.
The for comprehension in Scala is a powerful general-purpose looping and pattern-matching construct. Look at what it can do:
case class Person(first: String, last: String) {}
val people = List(Person("Isaac","Newton"), Person("Michael","Jordan"))
val lastfirst = for (Person(f,l) <- people) yield l+", "+f
for (n <- lastfirst) println(n)
The second case looks pretty straightforward--take each item in a collection and print it. But the first takes apart a list containing a custom data structure and transforms it into a different collection type!
The first for there highlights only a small portion of the capability of the construct; it is both extremely powerful and extremely general. In order to maintain this power, the for must be able to turn into something very general, which means closures. Then the question is: do you also introduce special cases that operate on known collections in simple ways with improved performance? The answer thus far has been mostly no, instead preferring solutions that optimize the general closure-taking methods that for turns into.
Whether this is useful for you in particular depends on whether you are using the general capabilities a lot (in which case you will be glad) or not (in which case you may wish progress was faster).
Still, try -optimize. It often usefully speeds up simple for-comprehensions these days.
The for-comprehension is much more than a simple loop.
If you need an imperative loop, use while. If you want to write performant code in Scala, you need to know this. Just like you have to know about language implementation when you want to write fast code in every other language.
So, since the for-comprehension is not a simple loop, I hope you understand that it's not compiled down to a simple loop.
I would assume using a closure is a general solution. A more optimal solution in some cases would be to "inline" the closure as a loop and eliminate the need to create an object. Perhaps the Scala designers feel the JIT should do this, rather having the compiler do this.
Let's say in Java this is the same as writing
public static void main(String... args) {
for_loop(args, new Function<String>() {
public void apply(String s) {
System.out.println(s);
}
});
}
interface Function<T> {
void apply(T s);
}
public static <T> void for_loop(T... ts, Function<T> tFunc) {
for(T t: ts) tFunc.apply(t);
}
This is fairly easy to inline (if you're a human). What is surprising is that Scala doesn't have an intrinsic to perform the optimisation to eliminate the need for a new object. Certainly the JIT could do it in theory, but in practise, it might be a while before it handles this specific case.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of the pitfalls you can get into if for does not create a closure.
In Python for example:
ls = [None] * 3
for i in [0, 1, 2]:
ls[i] = lambda: i
print(ls[0]())
print(ls[1]())
print(ls[2]())
This prints 2 2 2, because i has a longer lifetime than the for loop. I run into this trap all the time in Python and R.
So even in the very simplest of cases, it is important for for in Scala to be implemented using an anonymous function, because it creates an environment to store variables.
Some people say that every programming language has its "complexity budget" which it can use to accomplish its purpose. But if the complexity budget is depleted, every minor change becomes increasingly complicated and hard to implement in a backward-compatible way.
After reading the current provisional syntax for Lambda (≙ Lambda expressions, exception transparency, defender methods and method references) from August 2010 I wonder if people at Oracle completely ignored Java's complexity budget when considering such changes.
These are the questions I'm thinking about - some of them more about language design in general:
Are the proposed additions comparable in complexity to approaches other languages chose?
Is it generally possible to add such additions to a language and protecting the developer from the complexity of the implementation ?
Are these additions a sign of reaching the end of the evolution of Java-as-a-language or is this expected when changing a language with a huge history?
Have other languages taken a totally different approach at this point of language evolution?
Thanks!
I have not followed the process and evolution of the Java 7 lambda
proposal, I am not even sure of what the latest proposal wording is.
Consider this as a rant/opinion rather than statements of truth. Also,
I have not used Java for ages, so the syntax might be rusty and
incorrect at places.
First, what are lambdas to the Java language? Syntactic sugar. While
in general lambdas enable code to create small function objects in
place, that support was already preset --to some extent-- in the Java
language through the use of inner classes.
So how much better is the syntax of lambdas? Where does it outperform
previous language constructs? Where could it be better?
For starters, I dislike the fact that there are two available syntax
for lambda functions (but this goes in the line of C#, so I guess my
opinion is not widespread. I guess if we want to sugar coat, then
#(int x)(x*x) is sweeter than #(int x){ return x*x; } even if the
double syntax does not add anything else. I would have preferred the
second syntax, more generic at the extra cost of writting return and
; in the short versions.
To be really useful, lambdas can take variables from the scope in
where they are defined and from a closure. Being consistent with
Inner classes, lambdas are restricted to capturing 'effectively
final' variables. Consistency with the previous features of the
language is a nice feature, but for sweetness, it would be nice to be
able to capture variables that can be reassigned. For that purpose,
they are considering that variables present in the context and
annotated with #Shared will be captured by-reference, allowing
assignments. To me this seems weird as how a lambda can use a variable
is determined at the place of declaration of the variable rather than
where the lambda is defined. A single variable could be used in more
than one lambda and this forces the same behavior in all of them.
Lambdas try to simulate actual function objects, but the proposal does
not get completely there: to keep the parser simple, since up to now
an identifier denotes either an object or a method that has been kept
consistent and calling a lambda requires using a ! after the lambda
name: #(int x)(x*x)!(5) will return 25. This brings a new syntax
to use for lambdas that differ from the rest of the language, where
! stands somehow as a synonim for .execute on a virtual generic
interface Lambda<Result,Args...> but, why not make it complete?
A new generic (virtual) interface Lambda could be created. It would
have to be virtual as the interface is not a real interface, but a
family of such: Lambda<Return>, Lambda<Return,Arg1>,
Lambda<Return,Arg1,Arg2>... They could define a single execution
method, which I would like to be like C++ operator(), but if that is
a burden then any other name would be fine, embracing the ! as a
shortcut for the method execution:
interface Lambda<R> {
R exec();
}
interface Lambda<R,A> {
R exec( A a );
}
Then the compiler need only translate identifier!(args) to
identifier.exec( args ), which is simple. The translation of the
lambda syntax would require the compiler to identify the proper
interface being implemented and could be matched as:
#( int x )(x *x)
// translated to
new Lambda<int,int>{ int exec( int x ) { return x*x; } }
This would also allow users to define Inner classes that can be used
as lambdas, in more complex situations. For example, if lambda
function needed to capture a variable annotated as #Shared in a
read-only manner, or maintain the state of the captured object at the
place of capture, manual implementation of the Lambda would be
available:
new Lambda<int,int>{ int value = context_value;
int exec( int x ) { return x * context_value; }
};
In a manner similar to what the current Inner classes definition is,
and thus being natural to current Java users. This could be used,
for example, in a loop to generate multiplier lambdas:
Lambda<int,int> array[10] = new Lambda<int,int>[10]();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) {
array[i] = new Lambda<int,int>{ final int multiplier = i;
int exec( int x ) { return x * multiplier; }
};
}
// note this is disallowed in the current proposal, as `i` is
// not effectively final and as such cannot be 'captured'. Also
// if `i` was marked #Shared, then all the lambdas would share
// the same `i` as the loop and thus would produce the same
// result: multiply by 10 --probably quite unexpectedly.
//
// I am aware that this can be rewritten as:
// for (int ii = 0; ii < 10; ++ii ) { final int i = ii; ...
//
// but that is not simplifying the system, just pushing the
// complexity outside of the lambda.
This would allow usage of lambdas and methods that accept lambdas both
with the new simple syntax: #(int x){ return x*x; } or with the more
complex manual approach for specific cases where the sugar coating
interferes with the intended semantics.
Overall, I believe that the lambda proposal can be improved in
different directions, that the way it adds syntactic sugar is a
leaking abstraction (you have deal externally with issues that are
particular to the lambda) and that by not providing a lower level
interface it makes user code less readable in use cases that do not
perfectly fit the simple use case.
:
Modulo some scope-disambiguation constructs, almost all of these methods follow from the actual definition of a lambda abstraction:
λx.E
To answer your questions in order:
I don't think there are any particular things that make the proposals by the Java community better or worse than anything else. As I said, it follows from the mathematical definition, and therefore all faithful implementations are going to have almost exactly the same form.
Anonymous first-class functions bolted onto imperative languages tend to end up as a feature that some programmers love and use frequently, and that others ignore completely - therefore it is probably a sensible choice to give it some syntax that will not confuse the kinds of people who choose to ignore the presence of this particular language feature. I think hiding the complexity and particulars of implementation is what they have attempted to do by using syntax that blends well with Java, but which has no real connotation for Java programmers.
It's probably desirable for them to use some bits of syntax that are not going to complicate existing definitions, and so they are slightly constrained in the symbols they can choose to use as operators and such. Certainly Java's insistence on remaining backwards-compatible limits the language evolution slightly, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The PHP approach is at the other end of the spectrum (i.e. "let's break everything every time there is a new point release!"). I don't think that Java's evolution is inherently limited except by some of the fundamental tenets of its design - e.g. adherence to OOP principles, VM-based.
I think it's very difficult to make strong statements about language evolution from Java's perspective. It is in a reasonably unique position. For one, it's very, very popular, but it's relatively old. Microsoft had the benefit of at least 10 years worth of Java legacy before they decided to even start designing a language called "C#". The C programming language basically stopped evolving at all. C++ has had few significant changes that found any mainstream acceptance. Java has continued to evolve through a slow but consistent process - if anything I think it is better-equipped to keep on evolving than any other languages with similarly huge installed code bases.
It's not much more complicated then lambda expressions in other languages.
Consider...
int square(x) {
return x*x;
}
Java:
#(x){x*x}
Python:
lambda x:x*x
C#:
x => x*x
I think the C# approach is slightly more intuitive. Personally I would prefer...
x#x*x
Maybe this is not really an answer to your question, but this may be comparable to the way objective-c (which of course has a very narrow user base in contrast to Java) was extended by blocks (examples). While the syntax does not fit the rest of the language (IMHO), it is a useful addition and and the added complexity in terms of language features is rewarded for example with lower complexity of concurrent programming (simple things like concurrent iteration over an array or complicated techniques like Grand Central Dispatch).
In addition, many common tasks are simpler when using blocks, for example making one object a delegate (or - in Java lingo - "listener") for multiple instances of the same class. In Java, anonymous classes can already be used for that cause, so programmers know the concept and can just spare a few lines of source code using lambda expressions.
In objective-c (or the Cocoa/Cocoa Touch frameworks), new functionality is now often only accessible using blocks, and it seems like programmers are adopting it quickly (given that they have to give up backwards compatibility with old OS versions).
This is really really close to Lambda functions proposed in the new generation of C++ (C++0x)
so I think, Oracle guys have looked at the other implementations before cooking up their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x
[](int x, int y) { return x + y; }
Respected Sir!
As i have not learnt java yet but most people say that C++ has more OOP features than Java, I would like to know that what are the features that c++ has and java doesn't. Please explain.
From java.sun.com
Java omits many rarely used, poorly understood, confusing features of C++ that in our experience bring more grief than benefit. These omitted features primarily consist of operator overloading (although the Java language does have method overloading), multiple inheritance, and extensive automatic coercions.
For a more detailed comparison check out this Wikipedia page.
This might be controversial, but some authors say that using free functions might be more object oriented than writting methods for everything. So by those author's point of view, free functions in C++ make it more OO than Java (not having them).
The explanation is that there are some operations that are not really performed on an instance of an object, but rather externally, and that having externally defined operations for those cases improves the OO design. Some of the cases are operations on two objects that are not naturally an operation of either one. Incrementing a value is clearly an operation on the value, but creating a new value with the sum of two others (or concatenating) are not really operations on the instance. When you write:
String a = "Hello";
String b = " World";
String c = a.append( b );
The append operation is not performed on a: after the operation a is still "Hello". The operation is not performed on b either, it is an external operation that is performed on both a and b. In this particular example, the most OO way of implementing the operation would be providing a new constructor that takes two arguments (after all, the operation is performed on the new string), but another solution would be providing an external function append that takes two strings and returns a third one.
In this case, where both instances are of the same type, the operation can naturally be performed as a static method of the type, but when you mix different types the operation is not really part of either one, and in some cases it might end up being of a completely different type. In some cases free functions are faked in Java as in the Collections java class, it does not represent any OO element, but is rather simple glue to tie free functions are static methods because the language does not have support for the former. Note that all those algorithms are not performed on the collection nor an instance of the contained type.
Multiple inheritance
Template Metaprogramming
C++ is a huge language and it is common for C++ developers to only use a small subset during development. These language features are often cited as being the most dangerous/difficult part of C++ to master and are often avoided.
In C++ you can bypass the OO model and make up your own stuff, whereas in Java, the VM decides that you cannot. Very simplified, but you know... who has the time.
I suppose some would consider operator overloading an object oriented feature(if you view binary operators not much different then class methods).
Some links, that give some good answers:
Java is not pure a OOP language (... but I don't care ;) )
Comparing C++ and Java (Java Coffee Break article)
Comparing Java and C++ (Wikipedia comprehensive comparision)
Be careful. There are multiple definitions of OOP out there. For example, the definitions in Wegner 87 and Booch et al 91 are different to what people say in Java is not pure a OOP language.
All this "my language is more OO than your language" stuff is a bit pointless, IMO.