John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I was mainly specifically comparing haskell to standard OOP classes,
|
| Most OOP languages certainly have some set of other features in addition,
| such as forms of ad hoc polymorphism or the template meta-language of
| C++, or the code reuse primitives
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello Gabriel,
|
| Sunday, August 20, 2006, 8:26:30 AM, you wrote:
|
| > | There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
| > | etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
| > | data type you pass a
On 8/20/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C++ templates are a whole nother ball of wax.
And that's putting it politely. ;-)
T.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
I was mainly specifically comparing haskell to standard OOP classes,
Most OOP languages certainly have some set of other features in addition,
such as forms of ad hoc polymorphism or the template meta-language of
C++, or the code reuse primitives in sather, however I was mainly
interested in explo
Hello Gabriel,
Sunday, August 20, 2006, 8:26:30 AM, you wrote:
> | There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
> | etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
> | data type you pass around.
> The dictionary can be attached to the operations
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello John,
|
| Friday, August 18, 2006, 5:16:45 AM, you wrote:
|
| > There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
| > etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
| > data type you pass around. in
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello Thomas,
|
| Friday, August 18, 2006, 7:57:13 AM, you wrote:
|
| >> There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
| >> etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
| >> data type you pass aroun
John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:36:28PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Roughly Haskell type classes correspond to parameterized abstract
| > classes in C++ (i.e. class templates with virtual functions
| > representing the operations). Instance declaratio
Hello John,
Friday, August 18, 2006, 5:16:45 AM, you wrote:
> There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
> etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
> data type you pass around. in haskell, the dictionary is passed
> separately and the app
Hello Thomas,
Friday, August 18, 2006, 7:57:13 AM, you wrote:
>> There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
>> etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
>> data type you pass around. in haskell, the dictionary is passed
>> separately and t
On 8/18/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[lots of good argument before and after deleted]
There is a major difference though, in C++ (or java, or sather, or c#,
etc..) the dictionary is always attached to the value, the actual class
data type you pass around. in haskell, the dictio
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:36:28PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Roughly Haskell type classes correspond to parameterized abstract
> classes in C++ (i.e. class templates with virtual functions
> representing the operations). Instance declarations correspond to
> derivation and implementations
12 matches
Mail list logo
