Hacker News Reader

Obviously, all of the languages with type classes. Those languages do not have "type classes" like scala does, which is what I was replying to.

View on HN

So basically what you are saying is "Haskell has Haskell's typeclasses!".

That's a yuuuuge amount of languages that follow "Haskell"'s design! (Maybe you should start counting Haskell-to-X compilers separately to pad the number "1" a bit?)

Please read the posting guidelines and contribute constructively or not at all.

I have already mentioned three languages that haven't followed Haskell's broken mess, while you have failed to produce even a single bit of information, while constantly crying foul at everything you don't like?

That's just amazingly hypocritical, but I guess the tactic of "blame other people for your own behaviour to make it look like tu-quoque if they respond" hasn't gotten old for you yet?

I did not read your responses to other people, since you are obviously trolling. Your three examples are nonsense, two are haskell style, and one doesn't have type classes at all (ocaml).

Ok, so if I understand you correctly: you claim that your failure to contribute anything of substance should be blamed on your inability to read and your lack of any knowledge of the topic.

Well enough, sir.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com