On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins <greg@gregorycollins.net> wrote:

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.

I might be wrong, but doesn't Java's concepts of inner classes and interfaces together with adapter classes can be used to replace closures and typeclasses in a way?

Inner classes are not a semantic replacement for closures, even if you discount horrific syntax. Inner classes do not close over their lexical environment.