Why is Haskell missing “obvious” Typeclasses

Question

Consider the Object-Oriented Languages:

Most people coming from an object-oriented programming background, are familiar with the common and intuitiv

Answer 1

You have typeclasses for different collection aspects:

1. composition: Monoid (module Data.Monoid)

2. sequential control: Applicative, Monad (modules Control.Applicative, Control.Monad)

3. sequential composition: Alternative, MonadPlus (modules Control.Applicative, Control.Monad)

4. non-sequential mapping and reduction: Functor (mod. Data.Functor), Foldable (mod. Data.Foldable)

5. sequential mapping and reduction: Traversable (module Data.Traversable)

6. serialisation: Binary (mod. Data.Binary)

7. comparison: Eq, Ord (mod. Data.Eq, Data.Ord)

8. textualisation: Show, Read

9. deep evaluation (to Normal Form): NFData (mod. Control.DeepSeq)

10. generic datatype traversability: Data (mod. Data.Data)

Except that monomorphic collections (ByteString, IntSet, Text) cannot implement Functor and Foldable (they require type arity == 1 (Kind: * -> *))

Also neither (Set a) implements Functor.

The package mono-traversable redefines some classes without the monomorphic types exclusion.

Update. There is an attempt to put most functions in typeclasses with the packages mono-traversable and classy-prelude.

library ref, platform