[Haskell-cafe] Doing some things right

[Andrew Coppin]

Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 10:32 AM, Andrew Coppin <andrewcoppin at btinternet.com> wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>   

I actually meant "before Erlang, O'Camal and Haskell". ;-)

>> 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...
>   

Right. So a language where you have objects and methods, it's just that 
all objects are immutable?

>> 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 :-)
>   

And I met somebody who thinks assembly is a pure OO language. ;-)