Edward Kmett - Type Classes vs. the World

The point is a little more subtle than this, or how the article made it out to be. Global coherence and confluence (which GHC attempts to enforce unless told otherwise) is great for refactoring and equational reasoning and (yes) mathematics and programming at large, as Ed Kmett's fantastic "Typeclasses v. the World" talk covers: [this video] Global uniqueness of instances (which GHC does NOT enforce) is bad for modular programming, or programming at large, which is a point some of the commenters here are making. [link] The submitted HN link here has a terrible title. What the author is proposing is enforcing typeclass laws, which is a great idea (but difficult in practice to implement). Practice and time has shown that lawless classes are the ones that people hate, the ones that don't add any benefit and in fact make it harder to reason about large Haskell programs. I hope people don't take away from this link that classes in Haskell are bad. Haskell is three things: pure, functional, and typeclasses. They're part of the identity of Haskell; they're the reason we set off on this wonderful journey into the uncharted oceans of functional programming back in 1990. Typeclasses are AWESOME. And they can be improved. Postscript: Kmett also has a package that persuades the compiler to let you have dynamically generates instances. It has the same user experience as local implicits, which I think a lot of people here are asking for: [link] λ> using (Monoid (+) 0) $ mappend mempty 12 12 GHC

I've seen Evan's talk. Evan confuses the presentation of features with the value of those features. (I suppose one could solve the difficulties people have in learning Mathematics by throwing out everything after Algebra I; another solution, however, might be to do a better job teaching the more difficult stuff.) Just because you shouldn't expose new programmers to advanced concepts on the first day doesn't mean they shouldn't be a part of the language. Similarly, the fact (<~) might confuse someone new to Elm isn't a reason for removing it from the language. I'm sympathetic to the concern that some code is too "clever" or dense; but Elm swings the pendulum too far. (Btw, type-classes are not incidental complexity: [link] [this video] )