OOP

Nick Kallen phantom@earthlink.net
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:52:04 -0800


>Hybrid OOP languages are ugly beasts.  A Clean like OOP
>language could well be a neat thing, but I think it would
>be better to start with the Clean intermediate language
>and build a new pure OO-functional language on top of this
>base.


I think you fail to see most of the content of the whole discussion. Look at
Marco Pil's small (and beautiful) command based operating system (c.f., "Re:
Existential Types, object-orientation" 11/7/97) and you will see Dynamic
types that are purely in the spirit of the functional language Clean.
    If you examine my proposals, you'll see that I propose things purely in
the spirit of Clean, as well: to have type classes extended to Dynamic
types. (What could possibly be a more obvious and natural proposal to make
Clean a consistent language?) Despite that this allows a somewhat
object-oriented style of programming (i.e., it allows psuedo-inheritence and
psuedo-type extension), these constructs require programming in a functional
style; it's no different from type extension on static types.
    In short, the calculus that my extended Clean presents is not an
OO-functional mix; it is functional.

I am not trying to muddy the waters.