Related articles |
---|
Functional OO mtimmerm@microstar.com (1996-04-29) |
Re: Functional OO hamel@Think.COM (Lutz Hamel) (1996-04-30) |
Re: Functional OO graham.matthews@wintermute.anu.edu.au (Graham Matthews) (1996-04-30) |
Re: Functional OO ranjit@fwasted.zk3.dec.com (1996-05-01) |
Re: Functional OO patrick_d_logan@ccm.hf.intel.com (Patrick Logan) (1996-05-01) |
Re: Functional OO iainf@bristol.st.com (1996-05-06) |
Re: Functional OO hans@iesd.auc.dk (Hans Huttel) (1996-05-10) |
From: | Graham Matthews <graham.matthews@wintermute.anu.edu.au> |
Newsgroups: | comp.theory,comp.compilers |
Date: | 30 Apr 1996 23:58:07 -0400 |
Organization: | Australian National University |
Distribution: | inet |
References: | 96-04-157 |
Keywords: | OOP, functional |
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
> oriented?
>
> 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".
graham
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.