[Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right
lrpalmer at gmail.com
Sat Dec 29 05:44:34 EST 2007
On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a
> > bastard child...
> 1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old
> it almost predates electricity...)
Before the concepts of OO, functional, and imperative? Well, certainly before
OO -- the other two... perhaps.
> 2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The two
> seem fundamentally incompatible:
See O'Caml, O'Haskell. I'd call those OO functional languages. You may
reject state from OO and still have something which is quite close to OO.
But it's a matter of minor semantics now I think...
> 3. I know very little about Erlang, but the Haskell wiki claims it is
> not pure functional. (This agrees with the small amount of Erlang I do
I don't know any erlang. Someone in freenode.net#erlang things erlang is
pure functional :-)
More information about the Haskell-Cafe