[Haskell-beginners] Re: Type Class Woes ..

[Chaddaï Fouché]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Tom Poliquin<poliquin at softcomp.com> wrote:
> Chaddaï Fouché  wrote:
>>
>> data Volumic = Volume a => V a
>>
> I've never used existentials .. but this seems like a powerful idea.
> Unfortunately I couldn't get this to compile ..
> It was unhappy about 'data Volumic' so I changed it to
> 'data Volumic a' .. it was still unhappy and took me down
> the road of compiler switch options .. until I had ..
> ghc -XFlexibleInstances -XExistentialQuantification -XEmptyDataDecls --make
> Main.hs
> which was also unsuccessful.
>

Oops... Sorry, I just put together a simple example and didn't test
it, I forgot the forall :

> data Volumic = forall a . (Volume a) => V a

You must explicitly quantify the type variable to do existentials (and
use the proper extensions, which you did).

>
> Philosophical Summary ...
> All the examples of type classes examples I've seen in tutorials and
> books look simple, beautiful and elegant. No disrespect intended
> to the coding suggestions but they seem a little more difficult than
> I had expected for my toy problem ..
>
> So I'm wondering why that is ..
>
> - I'm stupidly trying to shoehorn my toy problem
>  into a type class example which is not the best approach.
>

Well it is a _toy_ problem where you're specifically trying to
shoehorn something into the form you wished to discover, this kind of
thing sometimes seems harder to do than resolve real problems where
the context and the practical objectives give you clues all along.

>
> - The problem is *not* a toy problem and is really
>   complicated.
>

In fact you're trying to address the so called "Expression problem"
here, it isn't a simple feat and while Haskell bring some answer they
are not so straightforwardly supported and easy to use as could be
wished (though I'm unaware of any practical language that do better
currently IMHO).

>
> - Type classes are more appropriate at the 'system' level
>   than the 'application' level. Applications are better off
>   using algebraic data types.
>

Depend on what you call "Application" I guess, given that creating a
big application in Haskell seems to consist of creating a
framework/dsl to express the main program in two lines, it may be that
you'll still need type class for that, but it's true that type classes
are better placed in libraries than in the application code, where
algebraic/record type and pattern matching are often a more
appropriate solution.

>
> - Tom (me) has expectations that are too high.
>   I do have high expectations of Haskell. I've written
>   several mid sized applications (obviously without
>   using type classes :-) ) and found them easy to write
>   and unbelievably easy to refactor!!!
>

It may be that too, while Haskell is impressive, it isn't perfect just yet. ;)

-- 
Jedaï