The formal definition of a meta package

Global uniqueness. If everyone, or at least serious developers who distribute their code beyond in-house projects, adheres to that convention, it will never happen that you get name clashes when you add another third-party library to your project. Bear in mind that Java was initially propagated as a solution for code deployment anywhere, anytime (via applets and remote classloading over the internet).

OO, according to Alan Kay is all about message passing, and that's it. You will see that qualities such as polymorphism and encapsulation are actually derived from message passing.

Now that stance is in fact very extreme, because it basically means that only Smalltalk and languages alike would qualify.

I think you can define OO as building your system on entities, that fully encapsulate their state, and that are rendered exchangeable due to their inherent polymorphous qualities. One could thus argue a purely OO language ensures these two core qualities are always met. What renders OO languages "impure" would be mechanisms that allow the creation of constructs that do not meet these criteria, such as the possibilities to:

• declare public fields
• declare variables that can only hold instances of a specific class and its subclasses (i.e. variables should be typed against interfaces, which is what the biological objects communicate through in Kay's anology), which is rendered even narrower if the class in question is final, as that leaves even less room for polymorphism
• declare primitives

Then again, IMHO language purity is more a weakness than a strength. OO is not a silver bullet. No single paradigm is.