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
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
