Re: [Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right

Luke Palmer wrote:

On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:

...

1. Wasn't Lisp here first? (I mean, from what I've read, Lisp is so old it almost predates electricity...)

Before the concepts of OO, functional, and imperative? Well, certainly before OO -- the other two... perhaps.

I actually meant "before Erlang, O'Camal and Haskell". ;-)

...

2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The two seem fundamentally incompatible:

See O'Caml, O'Haskell. I'd call those OO functional languages. You may reject state from OO and still have something which is quite close to OO. But it's a matter of minor semantics now I think...

Right. So a language where you have objects and methods, it's just that all objects are immutable?

...

3. I know very little about Erlang, but the Haskell wiki claims it is not pure functional. (This agrees with the small amount of Erlang I do know.)

I don't know any erlang. Someone in freenode.net#erlang things erlang is pure functional :-)

And I met somebody who thinks assembly is a pure OO language. ;-)