Lennart wrote:
> OOHaskell is ingenious, but it's a terrible way to use Haskell.
> It's very unidiomatic Haskell, and it makes you do things in the
> same old OO way.
It's probably obvious but let me say that ...
OOHaskell is more of a proof of concept and a sandbox for OO language design.
It is
Steve Downey wrote:
The primary goal of writing source code isn't to communicate to a
computer, but to communicate to a human being.
That implies that the communication should be at a high enough level
of abstraction to be easily understood by people, while not losing the
precision necessary for
Steve Downey wrote:
OO, at least when done well, maps well to how people think.
Um, better duck. I am afraid you are about to draw
some flames on that one. I hope people will try
to be gentle.
OO does NOT always map well to how most people
think. OO maps well to how people trained in OO think.
Steve Downey wrote:
| OO, at least when done well, maps well to how people think. Things
| that can be directed to perform actions. There is also a well
| developed practice of OO analysis and design. It's not clear (at least
| to me) that there is an equivalent set of practices for functional
| p
The primary goal of writing source code isn't to communicate to a
computer, but to communicate to a human being.
That implies that the communication should be at a high enough level
of abstraction to be easily understood by people, while not losing the
precision necessary for a computer.
OO, at le
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 s
And OOHaskell didn't compile for me on GHC 6.6... tells you about
currency of use.
On 1/28/07, Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OOHaskell is ingenious, but it's a terrible way to use Haskell.
It's very unidiomatic Haskell, and it makes you do things in the
same old OO way. Presuma
OOHaskell is ingenious, but it's a terrible way to use Haskell.
It's very unidiomatic Haskell, and it makes you do things in the
same old OO way. Presumably people are using Haskell to do things
differently?
But as I said, I consider OOHaskell itself a work of genius. :)
-- Lennart
On J
What about this OOHaskell:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/OOHaskell/
-- how is it received in the café? :)
Cheers,
Alexy
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
deliverable:
> Well, I'm thinking in terms of OOD/OOA/OOP -- Design, Architecture,
> Programming. That's about the only way to model a bog system. Say I
> have a stock market model -- I'll have a database of tickers, a
> simulator to backtest things, a trading strategy, etc.
>
> Do Haskell modul
deliverable:
> ...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 OO
...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 "righ
Well, I'm thinking in terms of OOD/OOA/OOP -- Design, Architecture,
Programming. That's about the only way to model a bog system. Say I
have a stock market model -- I'll have a database of tickers, a
simulator to backtest things, a trading strategy, etc.
Do Haskell modules provide enough encaps
13 matches
Mail list logo
