Java's Interface and Haskell's type class: differences and similarities?
While I am learning Haskell, I noticed its type class, which is supposed to be a great invention that originated from Haskell.
However, in the Wikipedia page on type class:
The programmer defines a type class by specifying a set of function or constant names, together with their respective types, that must exist for every type that belongs to the class.
Which seems rather close to Java's Interface to me (quoting Wikipedia's Interface(Java) page):
An interface in the Java programming language is an abstract type that is used to specify an interface (in the generic sense of the term) that classes must implement.
These two looks rather similar: type class limit a type's behavior, while interface limit a class' behavior.
I wonder what are the differences and similarities between type class in Haskell and interface in Java, or maybe they are fundamentally different?
EDIT: I noticed even haskell.org admits that they are similar. If they are so similar (or are they?), then why type class is treated with such hype?
MORE EDIT: Wow, so many great answers! I guess I'll have to let the community decide which is the best one. However, while reading the answers, all of them seem to just say that "there are many things typeclass can do while interface cannot or have to cope with generics". I cannot help but wondering, are there anything interfaces can do while typeclasses cannot? Also, I noticed that Wikipedia claims that typeclass was originally invented in the 1989 paper *"How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad hoc", while Haskell is still in its cradle, while Java project was started in 1991 and first released in 1995. So maybe instead of typeclass being similar to interfaces, its the other way around, that interfaces were influenced by typeclass? Are there any documents/papers support or disprove this? Thanks for all the answers, they are all very enlightening!
Thanks for all the inputs!
Answer
I would say that an interface is kind of like a type class SomeInterface t where all of the values have the type t -> whatever (where whatever does not contain t). This is because with the kind of inheritance relationship in Java and similar languages, the method called depends on the type of object they are called on, and nothing else.
That means it's really hard to make things like add :: t -> t -> t with an interface, where it is polymorphic on more than one parameter, because there's no way for the interface to specify that the argument type and return type of the method is the same type as the type of the object it is called on (i.e. the "self" type). With Generics, there are kinda ways to fake this by making an interface with generic parameter that is expected to be the same type as the object itself, like how Comparable<T> does it, where you are expected to use Foo implements Comparable<Foo> so that the compareTo(T otherobject) kind of has type t -> t -> Ordering. But that still requires the programmer to follow this rule, and also causes headaches when people want to make a function that uses this interface, they have to have recursive generic type parameters.
Also, you won't have things like empty :: t because you're not calling a function here, so it isn't a method.