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 convincing argument to me why Java gets a free pass for > lacking closures and typeclasses. > > I might be wrong, but doesn't Java's concepts of inner classes and interfaces > together with adapter classes can be used to replace closures and typeclasses > in a way?
Inner classes are not a semantic replacement for closures, even if you discount horrific syntax. Inner classes do not close over their lexical environment. Martin
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
