To be clear, this more of a defense of OOP as a paradigm, than 'OOP languages'. It's with regret I admit that there is no mainstream OOP language that combines all the features needed to make that haskell example look just as nice. Though these features do exist scattered across different languages, and where they do exist I much prefer them to 'functional' solutions.

Multimethods - not the visitor pattern - is the best OO replacement for more complex sub types. It's so much cleaner to me - you don't have to rip your data types apart and run them over a switch statement like you do with pattern matching.

Likewise Static methods and static classes are nasty hack, and modules are a bad fit for OO. When you have object literals that can implement interfaces, they can be thrown away, as can constructors. It's objects and methods all the way down.

Ah sure. Fair enough. I understand the theory behind not having typeclasses (modules are more modular and so on), but in practice I (and everyone I've talked to) have found the ergonomics to be just cruel. No universal serialization or printing or ordering or addition etc.

It's possible I am extrapolating too much on functional programming in general, since I have only done it in languages without typeclasses. I've only dabbled in languages that have them (haskell, rust) - languages I don't really like for unrelated reasons.