On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 19:47 -0600, Drew Vogel wrote:
> I saw a blog entry once (sorry, google can't seem to find it now)
> proposing the idea that OOP really is just language support for CPS
> (continuation-passing-style). Does anyone have a link to this?
'don't think I've heard of it, but it soun
I saw a blog entry once (sorry, google can't seem to find it now)
proposing the idea that OOP really is just language support for CPS
(continuation-passing-style). Does anyone have a link to this?
Drew
Kevin Van Horn wrote:
> Haskell has been around in one form or another for nearly two decades
> "Kevin" == Kevin Van Horn writes:
Kevin> What do the rest of you think? Is my analysis correct?
No, because ...
Kevin> Properly used, OOP is all about interface inheritance, not
Kevin> implementation inheritance. (At least in C++,
Kevin> implementation inheritance -- inh
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 17:28 -0700, Kevin Van Horn wrote:
> Haskell has been around in one form or another for nearly two decades
> now, yet has never been extended with explicit support for
> object-oriented programming.
Yes it has albeit in spun-off languages. See O'Haskell and Timber.
> I'
On 2009 Jan 1, at 19:28, Kevin Van Horn wrote:
Haskell has been around in one form or another for nearly two
decades now, yet has never been extended with explicit support for
object-oriented programming. I've
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/OOHaskell/
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/p
Haskell has been around in one form or another for nearly two decades
now, yet has never been extended with explicit support for object-
oriented programming. I've been thinking about why this is so. I've
come to the conclusion that Haskell simply doesn't need any explicit
OOP support -- a
