On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke Palmer wrote: > > OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is a > > bastard child... > > > > 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. > 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... > 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 :-) Luke _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
