|Functional OO firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-04-29)|
|Re: Functional OO hamel@Think.COM (Lutz Hamel) (1996-04-30)|
|Re: Functional OO email@example.com (Graham Matthews) (1996-04-30)|
|Re: Functional OO firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-05-01)|
|Re: Functional OO email@example.com (Patrick Logan) (1996-05-01)|
|Re: Functional OO firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-05-06)|
|Re: Functional OO email@example.com (Hans Huttel) (1996-05-10)|
|From:||Graham Matthews <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||30 Apr 1996 23:58:07 -0400|
|Organization:||Australian National University|
Matt Timmermans wrote:
> Is there any known notion of functional object oriented semantics? Is
> there any side-effect free language that could be called object
> I know there are difficulties with such an idea, but are these two
> paradigms inherently incompatible?
Why should there be any difficulties fusing OO and functional
languages. You won't be able to fuse the imperative part of OO,
namely arbitrary obect updates, into a functional system, but that
doesn't mean you can't have the rest of the OO feature
set. Inheritance, encapsulation, etc are all independent of whether
you have a functional or imperative semantics. Moreover things like
memoisation get you some way toward "object updating".
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.