[Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right

[Andrew Coppin]

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...)

2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The two 
seem fundamentally incompatible:

- FP could be defined as "programming without mutable state".
- In OOP we have the definition: "An object has identity, state and 
behaviour".

That a state has an *identity* more or less demands *mutable* state. So 
OOP is programming with mutable state inside objects, and FP is 
programming without mutable state. Hmm...

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.)

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Comparison_of_functional_programming_languages