What are first-class objects in Java and C#?
In .NET you don't have primitive types vs classes. Instead, you have structs vs classes, but structs share many of the features of classes (such as the ability to have properties and methods), and inherit from the Object class as well.
When you write int in C#, for example, it is just a language shortcut for the Int32 struct. You can do for example int i=int.Parse("34"), or even string s=1234.ToString(). In order to assign struct instances to variables of type Object, there is the boxing/unboxing mechanism.
In Java, on the other hand, you have indeed the primitive types vs classes dicotomy. So for example to perform operations on a variable of type int, you must use the auxiliary Integer class. That's one of the things that I don't like of Java compared to .NET.
EDIT. When you read about "first-class objects" (or classes), it means "fully-powered objects", that is, classes that have the same capabilities as any other system classes or user-made classes. This is to distinguish from "limited primitive types".
The notion of "first-class citizen" or "first-class element" in a programming language was introduced by British computer scientist Christopher Strachey in the 1960s in the context of first-class functions. The most famous formulation of this principle is probably in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Gerald Jay Sussman and Harry Abelson:
- They may be named by variables.
- They may be passed as arguments to procedures.
- They may be returned as the results of procedures.
- They may be included in data structures.
Basically, it means that you can do with this programming language element everything that you can do with all other elements in the programming language.
The problem is that "first class object" is not a well defined concept.
The normal usage is that someone says that an "object" is a class of thing that should have all of the properties X, Y and Z. But there are other things that don't have all of those properties, but they are sort of object-ish. So we'll call the former "first class" objects and the rest not "first class" ... and may be not objects.
The problem is that there are any number of views on the properties that a thing needs to have to make it a "first class" object. And no prospect of the people with opposing views coming to a consensus. (For example, a Javascript language expert might argue strenuously that an object is only first class if it is template-based.)
The only really solid insights about "first-classness" will be those that you can glean from the respective language specifications for Java and C#. And they only really apply within the scope of the respective languages / type systems ... and not across multiple languages.
So "first class Java object" or "first class C# object" might be meaningful, but "first class object" taken out of context is not.
Well that's my opinion ...
For each primitive data type in Java, the core class library provides a wrapper class that represents it as a Java object. For example, the Int32 class wraps the int data type, and the Double class wraps the double data type.
On the other hand, all primitive data types in C# are objects in the System namespace. For each data type, a short name, or alias, is provided. For instance, int is the short name for System.Int32 and double is the short form of System.Double.
The list of C# data types and their aliases is provided in the following table. As you can see, the first eight of these correspond to the primitive types available in Java. Note, however, that Java's boolean is called bool in C#.
From : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228360%28VS.80,lightweight%29.aspx