I am not saying that the code has to be in OO style. When I say OO is general, I mean I am thinking in OO style. This reflects on modeling, program structure, even code organization. Style is how we present things. I think that is less important than how we think about things.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Collins <g...@gregorycollins.net> wrote: > Tom Davie <tom.da...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds <magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> After all, I never think OO as an oppsite way to all other things. The >>> idea is so general that if you say I cannot use it in Haskell at all, >>> that would make me feel weird. The only difference between languages >>> is, some are easy to be in OO style, some are not. >> >> Wow, someone drank the cool aid! > > Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's > true (although technically speaking it is possible). That said, nobody's > yet to present a convincing argument to me why Java gets a free pass for > lacking closures and typeclasses. > > G. > -- > Gregory Collins <g...@gregorycollins.net> > -- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞 _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
