[marcosdumay]

> I don't want to believe that is what experts of the paradigm consider object-oriented programming.

Once you get to the scientific literature about the subject (where actual experts reside), it tends to be much more common to see the conclusions of "there isn't any formal difference between OOP and FP languages", or that in Haskell in particular "implements an strict superset of OOP".

The problem is that FP and OOP are ill-defined concepts.

[rienbdj]

Formal differences don't capture how awkward something can be to use. For applied programming this matters. Maybe I can do functional programming in Java, but if it's much more verbose than Haskell and the type checker occasionally falls over then it's not a good choice.

[AnimalMuppet]

In what sense is Haskell a "strict superset" of OOP?

[marcosdumay]

In the sense that you can recreate all the usual OOP syntax and behavior on Haskell. What people only do on practice for very limited extents, because it's not very useful to import those concepts to a language aimed at dealing with pure functions.