Talk:Type class

message: Are type classes analogous to interfaces in object oriented programming? --Pezezin 11:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen interfaces used as an analogy, but I think I also saw it said somewhere that interfaces are not as theoretically powerful as type classes. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: I've redirected "Bounded class" and "Bounded classes", which apparently are features of the upcoming Java 6, here since they seem to be versions of type classes. If this is wrong, the redirects should point somewhere else. --Gwern  (contribs) 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected

message: Links to Haskell's wiki seems to be dead...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.237.207 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links

message: Hello,
Could Type Classes be compared to Interfaces ?
May be some words about this comparison would be useful. Many people know about interfaces, so this could help to tell about in which way is comparable or not comparable. --80.185.187.249 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type classes & Interfaces 

message: I slapped a "Citation needed" template on the claim that type classes first appeared in the Haskell programming language. The claim seems dubious--CLOS's classes and generic methods appear to capture the idea of type classes without carrying the label. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First appearance of type classes 

message: There's an example function (member :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> Bool).
The word "member" has a special meaning in the type systems of most languages. This conflicts with the subject of this article. It would be better to rename it "find" or "isIn".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.75.7 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That example confused me too! I've changed it to elem, since that's the name of the Haskell function.Mount Flatten (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  member function example should be renamed 

message: I think most people are interested in knowing how type classes are typically used.  Maybe what the most common type classes are.  Then, if people are still interested, the rest of this article seems to do a good job of describing what a type class *is*.  Well, assuming that you know Haskell (or at least ML) and are comfortable with Monads...  Which excludes 95% of computer programmers.
I think the same issue is true with "what's a monad" questions.  The answer gets into complex category theory, but when people ask the question, they usually mean, "how is a monad used and what makes it useful?"
--GlenPeterson (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Using monads as the usecase of the example is almost comically unhelpful. Is that a joke? Or out of spite? Or compete lack of self-awareness? Who knows.. 178.192.214.235 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the usage of type class here. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 02:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

text: A more general application using Listable Int String is shown here --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 19:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to see more on how type classes are used.