[Haskell-cafe] How to fulfill the "code-reuse" destiny of OOP?

[Magicloud Magiclouds]

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 <greg at gregorycollins.net> wrote:
> Tom Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/31/09, Magicloud Magiclouds <magicloud.magiclouds at 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 <greg at gregorycollins.net>
>



-- 
竹密岂妨流水过
山高哪阻野云飞