* The Haskell guys can use Algebraic Datatypes and type classes to achieve many of the desirable properties of OOP.
* The ML guys can use OCaml, where the O is Objective. Ocaml contains a concept of OOP built into the language already (namely structural subtyping - someone could call this typed duck-typing). The ML guys in general also have another tool for abstraction at their disposal: ML-style functors.
* Erlang programmers often use processes which are self-contained concurrently executing "objects". In Erlang a process is lightweight enough to be considered a "heavy" object in OOP so you often structure your programs around several processes messaging each other to carry out solutions to tasks.
Different languages provides different tools as a means of abstraction. It is all just about unearthing the alternative.
Comments
* The Haskell guys can use Algebraic Datatypes and type classes to achieve many of the desirable properties of OOP.
* The ML guys can use OCaml, where the O is Objective. Ocaml contains a concept of OOP built into the language already (namely structural subtyping - someone could call this typed duck-typing). The ML guys in general also have another tool for abstraction at their disposal: ML-style functors.
* Erlang programmers often use processes which are self-contained concurrently executing "objects". In Erlang a process is lightweight enough to be considered a "heavy" object in OOP so you often structure your programs around several processes messaging each other to carry out solutions to tasks.
Different languages provides different tools as a means of abstraction. It is all just about unearthing the alternative.