Some people say that ocaml's object system is kinda useless. The best support I hear so far was:"it does not hurt" implementation inheritance, the strange "#" syntax, virtual method, why do I need them? In Java, people are doing programming-against-interface, implementation injection etc. All these show that we don't need implementation inheritance to be OO, and implementation inheritance is in many cases bad practice anyway. As somebody pointed out, we could do interface in Haskell with record. The only problem is names. If we could, as we can in OO languages, provide a separate namespace for the fields of each record. We are pretty much done. The rest is some kind of record coersion+row polymorphism mechanism. If haskell can do what Simon P. Jones and Mark Jones described in the paper <<Lightweight Extensible Records for Haskell>>, I'd say it is a already a nice functional OO language. Compared to Ocaml, 'OO' support is seamlessly integrated with the functional part. It leaves no redundancy, no overlapping in the language. In short, what if we don't create an object piece that competes with the functional part, but fix and enhance the record system that we currently have? Ben. 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