[Haskell-cafe] Haskell's type system compared to CLOS
ott at mirix.org
Tue Aug 11 17:57:40 EDT 2009
usually I'm sceptical of programming languages which are not based
on the von Neumann architecture, but recently I got interested in
functional programming languages.
The arrogance of lots of Haskell users, who made me feel that using a
programming language other than Haskell is a waste of time, combined
with vanguard mathematical notation has been very attractive to me
and I have decided to get at least an idea of Haskell and its concepts.
Some weeks ago I learned programming in Dylan and was impressed by its
object system which is basically a stripped version of CLOS. Multiple
dispatch together with a well-thought-out object system is quite
powerful, because it removes the burden of including methods in the
At the moment I'm reading the "Functional Programming using Standard
ML" and I'm in the chapter on data types.
This afternoon it occurred to me that classes and data types are
symmetric. In a class hierarchy you start an abstract super class
(the most abstract is the class object in some languages) and further
specialise them via inheritance; with data types you can start with
specialized versions and abstract them via constructors (I'm not sure
how message sending to a superclass looks like in this analogy).
Anyhow, I also came across an interesting presentation. Andreas Löh
and Ralf Hinze state in their presentation "Open data types and open
* OO languages support extension of data, but not of functionality.
* FP languages support extension of functionality, but not of data.
Their first point refers to the fact that in most object-oriented
languages don't allow the separate definition of classes and their
respective methods. So to add new functions, you have edit the class
However, in functional programming languages you can easily add new
functionality via pattern matching, but have to either introduce new
types or new constructors, which again means to modify existing code.
In Dylan (and in Common Lisp) you define methods separate from classes
and have pattern matching based on types. This solves all mentioned
So my question is, how are algebraic data types in Haskell superior to
CLOS (despite the fact that CLOS is impure)? How do both compare?
What has Haskell to provide what Common Lisp and Dylan haven't?
More information about the Haskell-Cafe