If two things (typeclasses, interfaces, whatever) are very similar, I just want to write how they're different. Without something like inheritance I also have to redundantly restate all the ways they're the same, which nobody benefits from, it's only an opportunity to make a mistake.
You do not understand what a typeclass is or how it's meant to be used. If you are redundantly restating a single thing in a Haskell program, you have taken a very wrong turn.
Give me a single example of something that it turns out is truly better expressed through inheritance, and you will be on the shortlist for a Turing Award.
My point is that it's not "(typeclasses, interfaces, whatever)". They're similar, yes, but my point is that they aren't similar enough in the "mechanical" sense that the parent poster seems to be assuming.
EDIT: Btw, I think it may actually be possible to encode what the parent poster wants by just having a type class per method, but it's obviously a weird and non-idiomatic encoding given the presumed lack of any laws.
