Of course typeclasses can be viewed as dependency injection as well. It its just that with typeclasses the injection is implicit rather than explicit. But mechanically they are identical
This is what I thought when I first saw the parent comment. It looks like an interesting alternative approach, but from the example I am not clear on why it is more flexible than the version using typeclasses.
I reckon I will need to re-implement my mocks using the technique you describe to really understand the motivation.
I didn't provide an example of the flexibility for sake of brevity.
The key point I want to make with regard to flexibility is the ability to have multiple "instances" and switch between them based on run-time values.
For a trivial example, consider searching an ordered array. Let me define the typeclass:
class Container a where
type Item a
size :: a -> Int
contains :: Item a -> a -> Bool
Now consider that I have the type SortedArray that I want to make an instance of Container.
instance Container (SortedArray a) where
type Item (SortedArray a) = a
size = sortedArraySize
contains = ???
What should my `contains` be? I could linear search or I could binary search. Depending on the size of the array, either could be faster (due to cache performance and constant overheads). For small arrays, linear search could be faster, and for large arrays, binary search could be faster.
I could write my method like this:
contains x xs = if size xs <= 64
then linearSearch x xs
else binarySearch x xs
But having that 64 hard coded in is sort of lame. Suppose I am writing software that will run on unknown hardware. I don't know the cache properties of it. Perhaps 16 is better. Perhaps 256. Since my application could be super high performance, I need it to be nearly optimal.
So on application start-up, I call a function which instantiates arrays of varying sizes and tries linear search vs. binary search to find the point at which one outperforms the other.
How can I use this value? I can't inject it in place of that 64 above (without unsafePerformIO...).
The solution is to instead represent the typeclass at the value level:
data Container a b = Container
{ size :: a -> Int
, contains :: b -> a -> Bool
}
Now I can have code that looks like:
main = do
n <- findOptimalSearchSplitPoint
let sortedArraySearch x xs = if sortedArraySize xs <= n
then linearSearch x xs
else binarySearch x xs
let container = Container sortedArraySize sortedArraySearch
Then I just inject that container "instance" wherever it needs to go.
The main difference is that typeclasses are injected at compile time rather than run time. By being explicit, I can inject different behavior based on runtime values.
well, the typeclasses are 'determined' at compile-time, but they are certainly de-sugared into extra function paramaters that are still passed around (injected) at run-time. Haskell does not completely specialize this away (even though in theory it could). But i grant you manual threading allows the user to do different things than expected.
I reckon I will need to re-implement my mocks using the technique you describe to really understand the motivation.