From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e80a1497a689d8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Ammo-zilla Date: 1999/11/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 543330439 References: <38120FAF.945ADD7D@hso.link.com> <7uutgd$87h$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19991024.18033546@db3.max5.com> <38189268.43EB150F@mail.earthlink.net> <3818B280.472FDBE5@averstar.com> <7vkj3p$auo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 941506606 232 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article > , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > Haskell doesn't support OOP, in particular, it doesn't support > > dynamic dispatch so I don't think the comaprison is > > appropriate. > > > I find it continually confusing that people confuse a > programming paradigm (OOP) with some features in the language > that are useful for supporting this paradigm. I'm not confusing anything. Since OOP, and Ada's function call notation are under discussion, comparisons with non-OOP languages are weak. I could just as well argue that since one can do OOP in C (and indeed, many people do!) that C's function call notation for OOP validates the Ada choice. That argument is more powerful too, since the number of C users outnumbers those of Haskell (and CLOS, and Ada combined :-) and stateful programming is more convenient in C than Haskell. No reasonable Haskell user will claim that the Haskell type system supports OOP well. Perhaps with existential types... -- Brian