Quoting Andrew Coppin <andrewcop...@btinternet.com>:
On 02/10/2011 07:15 PM, Du Xi wrote: In C++, the code is inferred from the types. (I.e., if a function is overloaded, the correct implementation is selected depending on the types of the arguments.) In Haskell, the types are inferred from the code. (Which is why type signatures are optional.) Really, it's just approaching the same problem from a different direction. Also, as others have said, you're probably just approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You don't design an object-oriented program the same way you'd design a procedural program; if you do, you end up with a horrible design. Similarly, you don't design a functional program the same way you would design an object-oriented one. It takes time (and experience) to figure out how to approach FP - or any other radically different paradigm, I suppose... _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Quoting Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com>:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 15:17, <sdiy...@sjtu.edu.cn> wrote: Not for your meaning of "clean". C++ is an object-oriented programming language; given a method call, it tries really hard to shoehorn the arguments to the call into some declared method somewhere along the inheritance chain. Haskell is a functional programming language; it is strongly typed, and typeclasses are a mechanism to allow that typing to be weakened in a strictly controlled fashion. In some sense, it's not *supposed* to be convenient, because the whole point is you're not supposed to throw arbitrarily-typed expressions at arbitrary functions. Instead, a properly designed program is characterized by its types; if the types are well designed for the problem being solved, they very nearly write the program by themselves. This doesn't mean that use of typeclasses / ad-hoc polymorphism is automatically a sign of a poor design, but it *does* mean you should think about what you're trying to do whenever you find yourself considering them. Nor does it mean that C++ is in some sense "wrong"; it means the languages are fundamentally different, and the appropriate design of a program is therefore also usually different between the two. -- brandon s allbery allber...@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
This has nothing to do with OOP or being imperative.It's just about types. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
