[Haskell-cafe] What I wish someone had told me...

[Lennart Augustsson]

You can do equivalent of
// List and MyList are different classes
if (something) { return new List(); }
else { return new MyList(); }
in Haskell as well.  But to do that you have to introduce an
existential wrapper in the return type.
In OO languages the existential wrapper is built in to OO constructs,
but in Haskell you have smaller building blocks that you have to
assemble to make the thing you want.

So to extend your example, you can do
data IList = forall a . (Foldable a, Indexable a) => IList a
getListOfData :: IO IList
and now you can return different kinds of types from getListOfData
depending on circumstances.

  -- Lennart

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM, John Lato <jwlato at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just thinking about what I wish someone had told me when I
> started working with Haskell (not that long ago).  It would have saved
> me a great deal of trouble.
>
> The Difference Between Interfaces and Type Classes.
>
> Many "Introduction to Haskell for the OOper" style tutorials claim
> that type classes are like Interfaces (for languages with that
> feature).  I now think that, although this is technically true, it's
> fundamentally misleading.  Here's a simple example demonstrating my
> line of thought:
>
> In C# (and presumably Java), this sort of function is common:
> public IList GetListOfData()
>
> In Haskell, a similar function may be
> GetListOfData :: (Foldable a, Indexable a) => IO a
>
> In C#, it doesn't matter what the actual type returned by
> GetListOfData is, as long is it supports the IList interface.  It's
> not uncommon for GetListOfData to make a choice between several
> different implementations, depending on the nature of the data to be
> returned.  The following code is perfectly reasonable in C# :
>
> // List and MyList are different classes
> if (something) { return new List(); }
> else { return new MyList(); }
>
> The equivalent won't compile in Haskell, because the actual return
> type does matter, and *is determined by the calling code*.  Our
> fictional GetListOfData can't return a List or a Mylist depending on
> some conditional, in fact it can't explicitly return either one at
> all, because the actual type of the result, as determined by the
> caller, could be either one, or something else entirely (ignoring the
> IO bit for the time being).
>
> So I've come to the conclusion that stating type classes are like
> interfaces is misleading to newcomers to Haskell, because it leads
> people to think they should use type classes for the same sorts of
> problems OO-languages solve with interfaces.  In turn this means new
> programmers are encouraged to use OO-style architecture in programs,
> reassured that they're in a "functional" idiom because they're using
> the "functionally-approved" feature of type classes.  I think that if
> I had understood this earlier, I would have embraced functional idioms
> more quickly.
>
> Incidentally, I'm still horrible at designing functional APIs and
> modules, but at least now I know it, and I'm no longer trying to force
> OO interfaces into Haskell.  So I've made progress.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>