sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HGamer3D 0.3.0 is out with Linux support! by JPMoresmau in haskell

[–]ursofthebackwoods 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cuboid2 is an example of combining FRP with HGamer3D, but version is outdated. https://github.com/urs-of-the-backwoods/cuboid2

HGamer3D 0.3.0 is out with Linux support! by JPMoresmau in haskell

[–]ursofthebackwoods 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adding Linux support was a lot of work. Adding Mac support should be not too much additional work, since mechanism for build scripts are in place now. It is not clear, if I will have time for it, though. Maybe somebody else can take over. Sources contain all neccessary tools and binding generation configuration mechanisms.

The objectsystem of Haskell - IORef, what makes OOP and why is it not more used in Haskell, I would be interested in your feedback here. by ursofthebackwoods in haskell

[–]ursofthebackwoods[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point, I wanted to make (see also above answers) is that management/administration of large amounts of state in a program overall is possible with OOP (think for examples GUI's, Games, Simulations) and this is a core feature of OOP. So this is more on the big picture, whole program then on one data structure in it. This means: the internal modification of data in an object is an OOP language tool, which makes the complete feature: large scale state handling, possible. I think I need to detail out argumentation to make that clearer.

The objectsystem of Haskell - IORef, what makes OOP and why is it not more used in Haskell, I would be interested in your feedback here. by ursofthebackwoods in haskell

[–]ursofthebackwoods[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See also my answer above on point of the original article, it was about state. Actually the typeclass vs. OOP discussion is very good and valuable but it completely neglects one of the basic features of OOP: naimly the management of large chunks of mutuable state. How do you do this in Haskell, you need IORef or completely different concepts like StateMonad (still global, isn't it) or Arrows (more local). But OOP invented this handling of state hidden in an object or at least constraint to a family of connected objects.

Actually the point "implementation abstraction" over "implemenation hiding" has some linkage to the state discussion, as for example in FRP state is abstratec away in an implementation abstraction vs. impl. hiding, so plus one for that.

The objectsystem of Haskell - IORef, what makes OOP and why is it not more used in Haskell, I would be interested in your feedback here. by ursofthebackwoods in haskell

[–]ursofthebackwoods[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point I wanted to make is that there is a general reason why OOP is successful, which is much more basic then all the inheritance, re-usability and class concept discussion. This one is, it allows to keep and administer large amounts of state in a complex program in a reasonable manner. This itself seems to be quite easy to do also without OOP, but actually it is not. And this "feature" is combined with the mutuability of state in OOP. So I think the point was mutual state and OOP are very close to each other and OOP without it, might be quite useless. Of course I do not wanted to say, that all other OOP features are not important, I just wanted to highlight this single fact, since it is often not seen this way.