On 2013-01-31, at 6:36 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
Greetings,
I often wonder how one would explain type classes to someone coming from an environment such as Java. Whenever I think about type classes, I seem to think of them as Java interfaces. Bah, even the bottom of [1] states
Haskell classes are roughly similar to a Java interface. Like an interface declaration, a Haskell class declaration defines a protocol for using an object rather than defining an object itself.
Is there more to this `roughly similar' statement? Syntax is an obvious difference but beyond that, I can't think of anything I can do with a Haskell type class that I wouldn't be able to do with similar amount of effort with a Java interface, except for the fact that the interface would look absolutely disgusting syntax wise.
Any insight appreciated.
Well I have limited insight but… Type classes can provide default implementations, which is not possible in Java. Type classes in a type signature describe or constrain a type and but are not themselves types. Among other things, this means in Haskell that collections must be homogeneous in their actual type, it's not sufficient to be "homogeneous in a type class". There are extensions to GHC that make this possible [1] but there are limitations and the usage has its detractors [2]. In Java you can have collections of objects that conform to a given interface even if they are of different classes. Personally, I find Haskell's restriction counter-intuitive but the sense of surprise and limitation is diminishing as I use the language. Cheers, Bob [1] -- http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Heterogenous_collections#Existential_type... [2] -- https://lukepalmer.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/haskell-antipattern-existential-...
[1] - http://www.haskell.org/tutorial/classes.html
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners