3 ms·

But could that kind of type system be considered similar to the usual Java-like little-flexible static typing? I think I would prefer a static vs dynamic implem

• hythloday 14y ago
  It's identical, conceptually. A type class can be thought of as a degenerate kind of Adapter pattern.
• ufo 14y ago
  ALthough the name is confusing type classes are very much like interfaces in Java: you define a set of operations that you want and then instantiate concrete types to that interface. The major differences between type classes and interfaces are: * In Java interfaces the interfaced type is restricted to the first argument (the this). In Haskell interfaces the interfaced type can also appear on return values and arguments. * In Java you need to decide what interfaces to implement when you create your class. Haskell allows interfaces to be implemented for previously existing types. * Java allows for subtyping. You can turn a monomorphic program into a polymorphic one just by creating subclasses while in Haskell you would need to rewrite your code to be explicitly polymorphic.