Cardelli wrote a whole book: https://www.worldcat.org/title/theory-of-objects/oclc/345573...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Cardelli

There's also definitely a lot of published papers about typing OO, like https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/316056 , https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/287603 , https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2016/6103/

Cardelli is a highly reputed academic. That book is a pretty seminal book, lots of papers refer to it.

I'm also not really sure what you're trying to point out. When you talk about a calculi for FP, you're talking about what? Lambda Calculus?

If so, the base mathematical model of OOP is the Turing machine. That's the model of computation involved. It's been extensively researched and is absolutely well accepted and recognised by everyone everywhere.

Similarly to how there was no mathematical model of Haskell or Idris, etc. There wasn't any for OOP languages either like Java, C++, etc. Any attempt at a mathematical framework over those languages came after, and none of them have a strong one that I know off. Some of them, maybe most especially Idris, did get a lot of inspiration from known typing mathematical models, but still the language itself does not have a full on calculus of itself (correct me if I'm wrong)

If you're talking about type theory and type systems as related to provability of computation, that's like a whole other conversation. But even then, there's ton of literature that research type systems that can prove OOP, often focused on subtyping since that's the main typing discipline of most OO languages with static type systems.

I can provide other formalizations, including SIGPLAN papers, but am low on troll food supplies to bother.

Well, your answers regarding OO calculus appear to be otherwise.

Here is a nice exercise, an FP calculus notation about the semantics of type classes in Haskell.

Afterwards, it would be nice to see the lambda calculus for functors in OCaml.

>Well, your answers regarding OO calculus appear to be otherwise.

I'm obviously not trolling. You literally admitted you are. I can't flag you, so I'm going to plant a word here that will hopefully attract attention and get some admin to stop you. Stop trolling or fuck off.

You were the one stating that only FP has a perfect calculus representation, and have dismissed all the posts from everyone that that proved otherwise.

I asked for the papers describing specific semantic models of two mainstream FP languages to give you the opportunity to prove your point, instead you threat to flag me, I think Dan will take his own conclusions.

>You were the one stating that only FP has a perfect calculus representation, and have dismissed all the posts from everyone that that proved otherwise.

That's my opinion. That's not called trolling. Disagreeing with people respectfully is not called trolling. Saying the shit you said above: that you're out of food to continue trolling me IS trolling.

I'd flag you already but you need a certain rep to do that. I'm quite new.. but let's see if Dang actually does his job.