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

I am not saying that the code has to be in OO style. When I say OO is general, I mean I am thinking in OO style. This reflects on modeling, program structure, even code organization. Style is how we present things. I think that is less important than how we think about things. On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Collins wrote:

Tom Davie writes:

...

On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds 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. -- Gregory Collins

-- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞