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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...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! _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
