[Haskell-cafe] State of OOP in Haskell

[Frederick Ross]

I'm going to be offensive, bigoted, and myopic for a minute here:
programming straight onto the Turing machine (and not too
dissimilarly, the von Neumann machine) is the act of making your
thoughts comprehensible to a little gizmo that exists to zip back and
forth on an infinite ticker tape.  We should therefore abstract.
However, I am only marginally happier about making my thoughts
comprehensible to a tinkertoy set (which is how I regard object
oriented programming).

Why not just stay as close to mathematics as possible?  Why the deep
desire to communicate your loftiest intentions to a tinkertoy set?

There was the Lambada project to map between Java's object hierarchies
and Haskell, however, and there was a lot of effort put into making
Haskell talk properly through COM.  Both of those necessitate a model
of object oriented programming embedded in Haskell which would provide
you with prior art.

On 1/27/07, Alexy Khrabrov <deliverable at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...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?

-- 
Frederick Ross
Graduate Fellow, (|Siggia> + |McKinney>)/sqrt(2) Lab
The Rockefeller University
Je ne suis pas Fred Cross!