[Haskell-cafe] State of OOP in Haskell

Alexy Khrabrov deliverable at gmail.com
Sat Jan 27 22:05:24 EST 2007

Well, I'm thinking in terms of OOD/OOA/OOP -- Design, Architecture,
Programming.  That's about the only way to model a bog system.  Say I
have a stock market model -- I'll have a database of tickers, a
simulator to backtest things, a trading strategy, etc.

Do Haskell modules provide enough encapsulation to design a system in
terms of them?  What are the design/architecture units in Haskell if
not OO-based?


On 1/27/07, Donald Bruce Stewart <dons at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> deliverable:
> > ...In the tradition of the "letters of an ignorant newbie"...
> >
> > What's the consensus on the OOP in Haskell *now*?  There're some
> > libraries such as OOHaskell, O'Haskell, and Haskell~98's own qualified
> > type system with inheritance.
> >
> > If I have GHC, which way to do anything OOP-like is considered "right"
> > today?
> Using existentials and typeclasses to do some OO things wouldn't be
> considered unidiomatic (particularly, using existentials to package up
> interfaces to values).
> In general though, using a functional approach will produce better
> (simpler) Haskell code, and make it more likely others will understand it.
> Personally, I run in fear from OO Haskell ;)
> Concrete examples of when you think you need an OO feature might be
> useful, so people can discuss the more FP solutions to the same problem.
> Cheers,
>   Don

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list