4 ms·
The article doesn't compare OOP to anything. It tries to define OOP and considers it necessity. Personally i think FP is complementary to OOP and Haskell could
by beza1e1 17y ago
The article doesn't compare OOP to anything. It tries to define OOP and considers it necessity.
Personally i think FP is complementary to OOP and Haskell could be OOP according the articles definition (OOP=polymorphism). Maybe someone who knows Haskell better than me can comment on that?
(disclaimer: i'm the author)
Update: I just saw that i did write "OOP is better than other paradigms" and corrected that. Sorry!
- Deestan 17y ago> I just saw that i did write "OOP is better than other paradigms" and corrected that. Good. :) I guess it was mainly that sentence that got me into the wrong mindset. I read through the rest believing that it was along the same lines. I retract my complaint.