OOP vs type classes Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] type gurus, can you please help?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com> writes:

| Hello Gabriel,
| 
| Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 10:36:28 PM, you wrote:
| 
| > | Moreover, Haskell type classes supports inheritance. Run-time
| > | polymorphism together with inheritance are often seen as OOP
| > | distinctive points, so during long time i considered type classes as a
| > | form of OOP implementation. but that's wrong! Haskell type classes
| > | build on different basis, so they are like C++ templates with added
| > | inheritance and run-time polymorphism! And this means that usage of
| > | type classes is different from using classes, with its own strong and
| > | weak points.
| 
| > Roughly Haskell type classes correspond to parameterized abstract
| > classes in C++ (i.e. class templates with virtual functions 
| > representing the operations).  Instance declarations correspond to
| > derivation and implementations of those parameterized classes.
| 
| i can't agree. 

You're welcome :-)

| the differences between TC inheritance/polymorphism and
| C++ classes are substantial. i listed them in next part of tutorial which
| you should see alongside this message.

sorry, I did not see that tutorial.

| you can also see paper at
| http://homepages.cwi.nl/~ralf/gpce06/ which is all about consequences
| of differences between classes and type classes for software
| development

Thanks for the reference.  Nothing in that paper explores what I
suggested.  I don't see how it contradicts what I said.