explaining the difference between OO polymorphism and ad-hoc polymorphism

Co-Authored-By: Jamie Thompson <[email protected]>

Author: aesteve

docs/docs/reference/contextual/typeclasses-new.md

@@ -267,6 +267,6 @@ given readerMonad[Ctx] as Monad[[X] =>> Ctx => X] {
 
 The definition of a _typeclass_ is expressed via a parameterised type with abstract members, such as a `trait`.
 The main difference between object oriented polymorphism, and ad-hoc polymorphism with _typeclasses_, is how the definition of the _typeclass_ is implemented, in relation to the type it acts upon.
-In the case of a _typeclass_ the trait's implementations are expressed through `given ... as` type definitions, and not through classes that `extends` the trait linearly.
+In the case of a _typeclass_, its implementation for a concrete type is expressed through a `given ... as` term definition, which is supplied as an implicit argument alongside the value it acts upon. With object oriented polymorphism, the implementation is mixed into the parents of a class, and only a single term is required to perform a polymorphic operation.
 
 In addition to these given instances, other constructs like extension methods, context bounds and type lambdas allow a concise and natural expression of _typeclasses_.