[Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right
andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Sat Dec 29 06:29:53 EST 2007
Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I actually meant "before Erlang, O'Camal and Haskell". ;-)
>> 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...
Right. So a language where you have objects and methods, it's just that
all objects are immutable?
>> 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 :-)
And I met somebody who thinks assembly is a pure OO language. ;-)
More information about the Haskell-Cafe