Why do you (or do these people) think having all the OO idioms of OCaml (see OCamls OO tutorial) is useless? Or do you mean too baroque? If not, what's missing?
Because it does not give us much that we cannot do nicely with the current functional part. separate name space of course. But it does not seem obvious that the rest of the object piece is necessary. Anything missing? Can't think of one. Simplicity I guess.
implementation inheritance, the strange "#" syntax, virtual method, why do I need them?
Fine with me. OOHaskell doesn't need them, indeed.
Nice.
Well having no implementation inheritance in Java would be a pretty brave limitation. Anyhow, OOHaskell (and OCaml) has programming-against-interface as well.
It may be. But is it a brave limitation that Haskell does not have implementation inheritance? I don't see the absolute need for impl-inheritance in an already rich and integral language such as Haskell. If impl-inheritance is already an arguable feature in OO langauges, I guess more thought should be given before it is pushed into a functional language at the cost of language complexity. (All I'm saying is general concern, it does not refer to HList or OOHaskell because I have no knowledge about them)
Have you seen HList? There are 4 different solutions for first-class labels in the distribution.
No. I'm just throwing in some ideas. If it is irrelavant or something already done, my apology. :) But, hey, don't get me wrong. I have no problem to see the language supporting impl-inheritance and other OO features. What I'm against is to invent a whole new standalone object system like what Ocaml has. In other words, it should not double the size of the language.
The rest is some kind of record coersion+row polymorphism mechanism.
Yes, good point. That's what we meant: the object system in Haskell has been overlooked.
If haskell can do what Simon P. Jones and Mark Jones described in the
Haskell 98 does not have row-polymorphism, does it? Or am I overlooking something? paper
<<Lightweight Extensible Records for Haskell>>, I'd say it is a already a nice functional OO language.
It can readily do more than that: http://www.cwi.nl/~ralf/HList
Compared to Ocaml, 'OO' support is seamlessly integrated with the functional part. It leaves no redundancy, no overlapping in the language.
What are you referring to? I mean: where is OO support seamlessly integrated with the functional
Thanks. I'll certainly find some time to digest it. part?
Do you refer to OOHaskell?
No. I did not look at OOHaskell yet. What I mean by seamless is the 'extensible record' proposal. It is not created for OO, but it can be used to do OO. Whatever I do, it is just an orthogonal piece of facility. While Ocaml objects and functional part don't look quite orthogonal. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please delete and advise the IT Security department at ITSEC@combined.com immediately