I'm going to be offensive, bigoted, and myopic for a minute here:
programming straight onto the Turing machine (and not too
dissimilarly, the von Neumann machine) is the act of making your
thoughts comprehensible to a little gizmo that exists to zip back and
forth on an infinite ticker tape. We should therefore abstract.
However, I am only marginally happier about making my thoughts
comprehensible to a tinkertoy set (which is how I regard object
oriented programming).
Why not just stay as close to mathematics as possible? Why the deep
desire to communicate your loftiest intentions to a tinkertoy set?
There was the Lambada project to map between Java's object hierarchies
and Haskell, however, and there was a lot of effort put into making
Haskell talk properly through COM. Both of those necessitate a model
of object oriented programming embedded in Haskell which would provide
you with prior art.
On 1/27/07, Alexy Khrabrov
...In the tradition of the "letters of an ignorant newbie"...
What's the consensus on the OOP in Haskell *now*? There're some libraries such as OOHaskell, O'Haskell, and Haskell~98's own qualified type system with inheritance.
If I have GHC, which way to do anything OOP-like is considered "right" today?
-- Frederick Ross Graduate Fellow, (|Siggia> + |McKinney>)/sqrt(2) Lab The Rockefeller University Je ne suis pas Fred Cross!