Luke Palmer wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
