My apology to those who don't care about
Java. Please trash this note.
I recently published two open source
Java projects that are based on the Monad computation model learned from
Haskell community.
1. A port for Parsec. This library is
called Jparsec. It implements monadic parser combinator in
Looks like my worry is pointless. :->
I was just afraid that Haskell may pick up another object monster. (And I'm
a C++/Java programmer)
Although I still miss a simple primitive language construct to do
'extensible record', it is definitely a nice work both theoretically and
practically to present
>Why do you (or do these people) think having all the OO idioms of OCaml
>(see OCamls OO tutorial) is useless? Or do you mean too baroque? If not,
>what's missing?
Because it does not give us much that we cannot do nicely with the current
functional part.
separate name space of course. But i
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 the
The only problem with this is "name".
It is too easy to have naming clash in haskell. Field selectors are also
top-level functions and they shared the same namespace with other
functions.
for any reasonable scale program, we'll end up with ModuleA.read x,
ModuleB.read b. (Yes, we can alias the mod
You can use state monad to mimic mutation.
Also, take a look at the recursive decent monadic parsec library. It may
have done what you are trying to do.
Regards,
Ben.
