|
|
|
|
|
|
by denibertovic
4290 days ago
|
|
|
How does FP, most notably Haskell, not encourage polymorphism? This statement is just plain wrong. Type classes are the definition of polymorphism. And you can write very generic, abstract, polymorphic code using these constructs. It's not any languages fault if you write your code expecting only concrete types. By this standard it's Javas fault if the developer isn't using generics. No it's not it's the developers fault. The mechanisms are there. Use them. |
|
|
a. Avoid typeclasses until strictly necessary, http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1j0awq/definitive_g...
b. Haskell has no first class instances. http://joyoftypes.blogspot.com/2012/02/haskell-supports-firs...
> The ability to have only a single instance for each class associated with a type makes little theoretical sense. Integers form a monoid under addition. Integers also form a monoid under multiplication. In fact, forming a monoid under two different operations is the crux of the definition of a semi-ring. So, why does it make any sense at all that in Haskell there can be at most one definition of “Monoid” for any type?
<removed useless stuff>