[higherkinded]

Haskell is its direct descendant, so of course it counts. It has all the traits required to be called that, and I'm implicitly talking towards it in the initial comment while still respecting the family. And for what I know, OCaml has generics, so I'm not exactly sure what do you mean here.

[antisemiotic]

I haven't ever written any OCaml, but I thought it has separate operators for ints and floats. I've written some SML and it has some special hacks to allow overloading on built-in operators. While I do understand that ML style modules are theoretically more powerful than Haskell's typeclasses, they always struck me as much clunkier for everyday use (that's why I personally consider ML family and Haskell family as separate - the approach to ad-hoc polymorphism is an important difference in my opinion)

[ernst_klim]

> they always struck me as much clunkier for everyday use

They are simply explicit. What's so clunky about modular implicits, for example?

Personally, I prefer explicit modules and hate typeclasses, because I can't look at the code and say if this operation is a primitive operator or some dynamically dispatched class method.

Besides, modules are way more powerful, and have a way broader use. They can encapsulate state, types, can be parametric etc.