Warp escreveu:
>   The fact is: If a programming language supports types, if it also
> supports abstract user-defined types, it becomes an order of magnitude
> more expressive and useful. And abstract user-defined types are objects
> (in the OO sense).

But that's within a function composition environment.  I don't like OO's 
step-by-step, verbose and multilayered approach of redundancy.  I also 
don't like all the naming conventions done for the sake of stupid, 
easily replaceable drones programming in big enterprises, like as if 
they were programming in notepad rather than in contextful high-end 
IDEs.  Then again, perhaps even Haskell would follow the same fate were 
it to be endorsed by the industry...

Post a reply to this message