RE: The importance and relevance of FP

[Doug Ransom]

I do believe FP is current 90 degrees out of phase with OO.  I think the isue with tuples, lists, conses, etc. it the big problem.  I currently see no way for someone to write a clever matrix library in Haskell and have it seamlessly integrate into the NGWS framework (the new object type and runtime system from MS likely here to stay for a long long time) and C#, VB, etc.  The  impedance mismatch is just too high.   I think it is really far fetched to expect tuples, lists, etc. to be mainstream in an environment like NGWS -- the C#/Java/VB languages are just not going to make that step.  NGWS will just provide a cool runtime for Haskell to sit on, but Haskell will still be off in its own little corner.               -----Original Message----- From: Jacques Lemire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 2:24 PM To: haskell Subject: The importance and relevance of FP Mr Rawson wrote:   ========================= However, almost no one is even thinking about FP.  I think NGWS will be the kiss of death for FP in the large -- OO just seems 90 degrees out of phase with FP.  =========================   On the contrary,  languages like C++ (and Java) and C#  are full of concepts and ideas coming from FP languages. For example, the catch/try/throw construct is coming directly from Common Lisp (Lisp is a (although impure) FP language).   I would n  ot be a bit suprise to see tuples, lists and cons(es) introduce in the next generation of languages.   FP languages are to VB or C++ what F1 cars are to a Chevrolet or Diesel trucks.  You don't get a liter of milk with a F1 car!   Moreover, OO is only one way of doing things: it is amazing the numbers of projects (and working) that are *not* programmed with C++. If you what to see the limitations of OO and C++, take a look at the MFC, MFC architects had to introduce macros.   Jacques Lemire [EMAIL PROTECTED]