[Haskell-cafe] State of OOP in Haskell

Steve Downey sdowney at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 08:43:00 EST 2007

The primary goal of writing source code isn't to communicate to a
computer, but to communicate to a human being.
That implies that the communication should be at a high enough level
of abstraction to be easily understood by people, while not losing the
precision necessary for a computer.
OO, at least when done well, maps well to how people think. Things
that can be directed to perform actions. There is also a well
developed practice of OO analysis and design. It's not clear (at least
to me) that there is an equivalent set of practices for functional
It did take more  than a decade for the industry to move from
structured analysis and design to OO, even when it was obvious to most
practioners that there was a horrible mismatch, and the models coming
out of analysis didn't apply.
The consensus answer to 'how do I implement my OO model in Haskell'
seems to be 'you're asking the wrong question'. But what is the right

On 1/28/07, Frederick Ross <madhadron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list