[Haskell-cafe] How to fulfill the "code-reuse" destiny of OOP?

[Michael Vanier]

Gregory Collins wrote:
> Tom Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds <magicloud.magiclouds at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The
>>> idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all,
>>> that would make me feel weird. The only difference between languages
>>> is, some are easy to be in OO style, some are not.
>>>       
>> Wow, someone drank the cool aid!
>>     
>
> Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
> true (although technically speaking it is possible). That said, nobody's
> yet to present a convincing argument to me why Java gets a free pass for
> lacking closures and typeclasses.
>
> G.
>   
Because most programmers have never heard of closures and typeclasses, 
and thus have no idea how useful they are? :-(

BTW using existential types in Haskell you can mimic OO to a pretty 
decent degree, at least as far as interfaces are concerned.

Mike