[Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right

Luke Palmer 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
> know.)

I don't know any erlang.  Someone in freenode.net#erlang things erlang is
pure functional :-)


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list