GridView的自动分页不起作用(GridView's Automatic paging doesn't work)

 在基本层面上，没有什么区别，但是他们还在。 
 
 Haskell将类型类中定义的函数或值描述为“方法”，正如描述它们所包含的对象中的OOP方法一样。 然而，Haskell处理这些不同，将它们视为个人价值观，而不是将它们固定在一个对象上，因为OOP会导致一个对象。 这是关于最明显的表面水平差异。 
 
 Rust最近不能做的一件事就是更高级的打字特质 ，比如臭名昭着的Functor和Monad类型。 
 
 这意味着，Rust特性只能描述通常被称为“具体类型”的意思，也就是说，没有一个通用的参数。 然而，Haskell可以使用类似于高阶函数使用其他函数的类型的高阶类型类，使用一个来描述另一个函数。 我们无法在Rust中实现上述类型，因为它不支持在Haskell中被认为是基本的，甚至至关重要的。 幸运的是，最近已经实施了相关的项目 。*然而，这并不是惯用的Rust，而是通常被认为是“黑客”。 
 
 正如在评论中所说，GHC（Haskell的主编）支持进一步的类型选项，包括多参数 （即涉及多种类型）类型类型和功能依赖性 ，这也是一个可以选择的类型级别计算，并引导到家庭 。 据我所知，Rust虽然可能在将来也没有funDeps或类型的家庭† 
 
 总而言之，虽然特质和类型表现在表面上看起来是相当的，但是当考虑到许多品质时，它们比较更深刻，确实有很大的差异。 
 
 
 
 *在附注中，斯威夫特尽管有特色，但并没有这样高的打字机制。 未来的语言更新，也许？ 
 
 †可以在这里找到一篇关于Haskell的类型类（包括更高类型的类型）的文章，而且Rust的特征也是一样的，但是不幸的是，它是一个过时的。 

At the basic level, there's not much difference, but they're still there.
 
Haskell describes functions or values defined in a typeclass as 'methods', just as traits describe OOP methods in the objects they enclose. However, Haskell deals with these differently, treating them as individual values rather than pinning them to an object as OOP would lead one to do. This is about the most obvious surface-level difference there is.
 
The one thing that Rust could not do, up until recently, was higher-order typed traits, such as the infamous Functor and Monad typeclasses.
 
This means that Rust traits could only describe what's often called a 'concrete type', in other words, one without a generic argument. Haskell, however, can make higher-order typeclasses which use types similar to how higher-order functions use other functions, using one to describe another. We couldn't implement the typeclasses aforementioned in Rust, because it didn't support this feature that is regarded as basic, and even essential, in Haskell. Thankfully, this has been implemented recently with associated items.* However, this is not idiomatic Rust, and is generally considered a 'hack'.
 
It is also mentionable, as said in the comments, that GHC (Haskell's principal compiler) supports further options for typeclasses, including multi-parameter (i.e. many types involved) typeclasses, and functional dependencies, a lovely option that allows for type-level computations, and leads on to type families. To my knowledge, Rust has neither funDeps or type families, though it may in the future.†
 
All in all, whilst traits and typeclasses may seem equivalent on the surface, they do have a lot of differences when compared more deeply, when considering numerous qualities.
 
 
 
 
* On a side note, Swift, despite having traits, has no such higher-typing mechanism. A future update to the language, maybe?
  
† A nice article on Haskell's typeclasses (including higher-typed ones) can be found here, and an equally good one on Rust's traits is kept here, though is unfortunately a tad out-of-date.