On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins g...@gregorycollins.netwrote:
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
On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins g...@gregorycollins.net
wrote:
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
The problem with interfaces as a replacement for type classes is that
they only provide dispatch based on the specific type of the first
argument (i.e. the receiver).
Type classes allow you to dispatch based on return type, and on the
instantiations of generic parameters. Neither of these things
On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Type classes allow you to dispatch based on return type, and on the
instantiations of generic parameters. Neither of these things is
reasonably possible with interfaces.
There is recent work that generalises the capabilities of
Yes that is true, but often in Haskell I had to use type annotations
when the dispatch is based on the return type, so it also has some
tradeoffs.
Don't get me wrong, I see the advantages of Haskell's type classes and
closures, and I love these. But in Java - if you stay close to OO, and
don't
Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins g...@gregorycollins.net
wrote:
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
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Martin Coxall pseudo.m...@me.com wrote:
On 13 Jan 2010, at 09:51, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Gregory Collins g...@gregorycollins.net
wrote:
Doing OO-style programming in Haskell is difficult and unnatural, it's
true (although
Anonymous classes in Java close over their lexical environment (can
refer to variables in that lexical environment, with values bound at
the time of instance construction) with the caveat that only local
variables/parameters marked as 'final' may be referred to. Aside from
the horrible
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
Magicloud wrote:
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
Somehow, I agree with you.
I think inherit is not evil, the people use it wrong is. The problem
here is, inherit is naked right now. So people could use it wrong.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroubl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/30 Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com:
The
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.
2009/10/31 Andrew Coppin
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
Yoda Master tells understands he you not, inheritance naked can be
how, you clarify please asks he to.
2009/10/31 Magicloud Magiclouds magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com:
Somehow, I agree with you.
I think inherit is not evil, the people use it wrong is. The problem
here is, inherit is naked right
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
Gregory Collins 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
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Michael Vanier mvanie...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Collins 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
On 30/10/09 05:32, Rogan Creswick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com wrote:
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a data?
Magnus Therning wrote:
IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with data
inheritance.
This sounds interesting. Can you link us to an article, please?
Thanks,
Martijn.
On this subject, I think, any content inherit would lead to trouble
somehow. But is that the reason that we should totally cut them loose?
I mean the way of programming developing is easier making (writing),
easier maintaining. In fact, I think this is a fork in front of me:
Before any new
2009/10/30 Martijn van Steenbergen mart...@van.steenbergen.nl:
Magnus Therning wrote:
IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with data
inheritance.
This sounds interesting. Can you link us to
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Martijn van Steenbergen
mart...@van.steenbergen.nl wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
IIRC James Gosling once said that if he were to design Java today he would
leave out classes. I suppose partly due to many of the issues with data
inheritance.
This sounds
Magnus == Magnus Therning mag...@therning.org writes:
Magnus It seems I was wrong in my assumption about data
Magnus inheritance, implementation inheritance is just as
Magnus evil.
Both are fine.
--
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire
___
The following is purely my own experience, I have no links to papers
of clever people :)
I think none of the inheritance techniques work perfectly. E.g.
describing everything with OO interfaces (=a extensible record of
function pointers) is also problematic IMHO, at least when you have
side
2009/10/30 Peter Verswyvelen bugf...@gmail.com:
The following is purely my own experience, I have no links to papers
of clever people :)
I think none of the inheritance techniques work perfectly. E.g.
describing everything with OO interfaces (=a extensible record of
function pointers) is
Rogan Creswick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com wrote:
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a data?
In my
Hi,
I think when people talk about OOP, especially the inheriting, their
focus mainly is on functions (methods).
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a data?
--
竹密岂妨流水过
山高哪阻野云飞
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Magicloud Magiclouds
magicloud.magiclo...@gmail.com wrote:
My concern here is about the data member inheriting. In OOP, when I
inherit a class, I also got the members of it. But in haskell, how to
inherit a data?
In my experience (almost entirely with Java),
28 matches
Mail list logo
