Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I was just pointing out that the mechanism for doing the OO thing exists in Haskell too, albeit looking a little different.
Indeed there is a mechanism for doing OO in Haskell -- several of them. Most of them have nothing to do with Existentials. In the OHaskell paper, http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/OOHaskell/ Ralf Laemmel has collected all known to us methods of doing OO in Haskell. Incidentally, three years ago Lennart Augustsson described a simple, Haskell98 method of emulating OO, without existentials. We give him credit in footnote 4. The OOHaskell paper then goes to demonstrate how to do *all* of the known OO in Haskell, with all its inherent complexity: depth and width subtyping, upcasting and safe downcasting, nominal and structural subtyping, and the whole issue about covariant methods. Derek Elkins wrote:
In general, to encode OO you need quite a bit more than existentials. As you are probably aware, there was a cottage industry in the mid to late '90s working on encodings of OO languages into System F + foo calculi. They just about gave up on a complete encoding until someone figured one out. 'turns out all you needed was recursive bounded existential quantification.
Not necessarily. Again, please see the OOHaskell paper. The full story is that there are several encodings of objects -- using closures and using existentials. The former are *far* simpler. ML-ART (which later evolved in the 'O' of OCaml) chose the more complex encoding -- and hence had to add equi-recursive types, existentials and universals to Caml -- only because of a potential safety issue with closures. A constructor of an object may invoke methods that may access fields that are not initialized yet. This problem is present in all OO languages, and the common `solution' is an admonition ``not to do that''. Clearly Didier Remy has higher standards, and he went into considerable pain to solve the problem. Incidentally, Haskell can solve this problem in a simpler way. We critically rely on the fact that all effects must be done in a monad. Therefore, in OOHaskell we can safely use the simpler encoding for objects. Regarding existentials, the web page http://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/Existentials.html demonstrates how to systematically eliminate existentials. In fact, the object encoding via existentials can be easily transformed into the encoding that uses only simple, first-order types. The web page begs a question if there is ever any real need for existentials.