Haskell doesn't encode them. And other concepts can be given a mathematical definition if someone wanted to formalize them.

▲

frumplestlatz 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That is pedantry. As for the other concepts, formalizations of OO have been done — generally to support formal verification of OO languages.

They are incredibly complicated, comprising papers of tens to hundreds of pages, and either extremely language specific, usually only formalizing a portion of the full language, or general but too limited to specify the behavior of real world languages.

The two are not comparable.

I’m also not aware of any general formalization of MVC or how one would even begin to approach a canonical definition, much less formalization.

▲

charcircuit 4 days ago | parent [-]

>I’m also not aware of any general formalization of MVC or how one would even begin to approach a canonical definition

You define it by defining Model, View, and Controller and how they interact with each other. For example take a look at the diagram from the article.

	▲	4 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

antonvs 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> other concepts can be given a mathematical definition if someone wanted to formalize them.

There's really no comparison. Monads have a very small and simple definition. That's not true of either OOP or MVC. Formalizations of OOP do exist - they're complex and messy and mainly serve to demonstrate how poorly motivated classic OOP is.

	▲	charcircuit 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		>they're complex and messy Ultimately they are expressed in code by either the compiler or a framework. If you just want a high level formalization I don't think it would be that complex or messy.