I do not necessarily disagree.... But if I can identify the overlap....then I have leant the overlap...on the cheap. -----Original Message----- From: Bulat Ziganshin [mailto:bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com] Sent: 03 January 2008 14:39 To: Nicholls, Mark Cc: Bulat Ziganshin; haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Is there anyone out there who can translate C# generics into Haskell? Hello Mark, Thursday, January 3, 2008, 2:13:08 PM, you wrote: of course *some* overlap exists but in order to understand it you should know exact shape of both methods when i tried to develop complex library without understanding t.c. implementation, i constantly goes into the troubles - things that i (using my OOP experience) considered as possible, was really impossible in Haskell so i'm really wonder why you don't want to learn the topic thoroughly
I loosely do understand....but very loosely....but I'm not, as yet, convinced it is completely relevant.
The implementation may differ, but that does not mean that there is no overlap....I am not expecting one model to be a superset of the other, but I am expecting some sort of overlap between 'interface' implementation and type class instance declaration.
-----Original Message----- From: Bulat Ziganshin [mailto:bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com] Sent: 03 January 2008 10:54 To: Nicholls, Mark Cc: Bulat Ziganshin; haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Is there anyone out there who can translate C# generics into Haskell?
Hello Mark,
Thursday, January 3, 2008, 1:22:26 PM, you wrote:
because they have different models. i recommend you to start from learning this model, otherwise you will don't understand how Haskell really works and erroneously apply your OOP knowledge to Haskell data structures.
shortly said, there are 3 ways to polymorphism:
1) C++ templates - type-specific code generated at compile time 2) OOP classes - every object carries VMT which allows to select type-specific operation 3) type classes - dictionary of type-specific operations is given as additional hidden argument to each function
Haskell uses t.c. and its abilities are dictated by this implementation. there is no simple and direct mapping between features provided by OOP and t.c.
Can you give me a summary of why it's meaningless.....both would seem to describe/construct values/objects....they may not be equivalent, but I would expect some considerable overlap.
-----Original Message----- From: Bulat Ziganshin [mailto:bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com] Sent: 02 January 2008 20:29 To: Nicholls, Mark Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Is there anyone out there who can translate C# generics into Haskell?
Hello Mark,
Wednesday, January 2, 2008, 7:40:31 PM, you wrote:
I'm trying to translate some standard C# constucts into Haskell... some
it's meaningless. read http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/OOP_vs_type_classes and especially papers mentioned in the References
-- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com